G3i 

CTI 


4 


THE  LAND  QUESTION 


WHAT  IT  INVOLVES,  AND  HOW 
ALONE  IT  CAN  BE  SETTLED 


BY 


HENRY  GEORGE 


oweu  by  then1  < 


Author  of  ‘  ‘  Progress  and  Poverty.  ”11 
“  A  Perplexed  Philoso 


We  hold  thf  - 
that  they  are 
that  among  th< 
to  secure  these 
their  just  powers 
form  of  government' 
the  people  to  alter  or  a 


or  Free  Trade?”  “  Social  Problems, 
litical  Economy,”  etc. 

4 


‘‘  hat  men  ale  created  equal ; 
r  with  certain  qaalienable  rights; 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pur^jjt  off  happiness.  That 
vernments  are  institdfba  a»ong  men,  deriving 
pnsent  of  that  whenever  any 

ends,  it  is  the  right  of 
7>f  Independence. 


NEW  YORK 

DOUBLEDAY  &  McCLURE  CO. 

1898 


I 


'hb 


Copyright,  1881.  by 
Henry  George. 


rr  n  ?r 


THE 

LAND  QUESTION 


WHAT  IT  INVOLVES,  AND  HOW  ALONE  IT  CAN 

BE  SETTLED 


Copyright,  1881,  by 
Henry  George. 


PREFACE. 


This  book  was  first  published  in  the  early  part  of  1881, 
under  the  title  of  u  The  Irish  Land  Question.”  In  order 
better  to  indicate  the  general  character  of  this  subject,  and 
to  conform  to  the  title  under  which  it  had  been  republished 
in  other  countries,  the  title  was  subsequently  changed  to 
u  The  Land  Question  ” 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Unpalatable  Truth .  7 

n.  Distress  and  Famine . 15 

III.  A  Universal  Question . 21 

IV.  Proposed  Remedies . 29 

V.  Whose  Land  is  it? . 35 

VI.  Landlords’  Right  is  Labor’s  Wrong . 38 

VII.  The  Great-Great-Grandson  of  Captain  Kidd.  .  43 

VIII.  The  Only  Way,  the  Easy  Way . 52 

IX.  Principle  the  Best  Policy . 56 

X.  Appeals  to  Animosity . 60 

XI.  How  to  Win . 64 

XII.  In  the  United  States . 73 

XHI.  A  Little  Island  or  a  Little  World  0  .  .  .  .  76 

XIV.  The  Civilization  that  is  Possible . 80 

XV.  The  Civilization  that  is . 87 

XVI.  True  Conservatism . 97 

XVII.  In  Hoc  Signo  Vinces . 106 


i. 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

UNPALATABLE  TRUTH. 

IN  charging  the  Dublin  jury  in  the  Land  League  cases, 
Mr.  Justice  Fitzgerald  told  them  that  the  land  laws  of 
Ireland  were  more  favorable  to  the  tenant  than  those  of 
Great  Britain,  Belgium,  or  the  United  States. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Justice  Fitzgerald  is  right.  For  in 
Ireland  certain  local  customs  and  the  provisions  of  the 
Bright  Land  Act  mitigate  somewhat  the  power  of  the 
landlord  in  his  dealings  with  the  tenant.  In  Great  Brit¬ 
ain,  save  by  custom  in  a  few  localities,  there  are  no  such 
mitigations.  In  Belgium  I  believe  there  are  none.  There 
are  certainly  none  in  the  United  States. 

This  fact  which  Justice  Fitzgerald  cites  will  be  reechoed 
by  the  enemies  of  the  Irish  movement.  And  it  is  a  fact 
well  worth  the  consideration  of  its  friends.  For  the  Irish 
movement  has  passed  its  first  stage,  and  it  is  time  for  a 
more  definite  understanding  of  what  is  needed  and  how 
it  is  to  be  got. 

It  is  the  fashion  of  Land  League  orators  and  sympa¬ 
thizing  newspapers  in  this  country  to  talk  as  if  the  dis¬ 
tress  and  disquiet  in  Ireland  were  wholly  due  to  political 
oppression,  and  our  national  House  of  Representatives 


i 


8  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

recently  passed,  by  unanimous  vote,  a  resolution  which 
censured  England  for  her  treatment  of  Ireland.  But, 
while  it  is  indeed  true  that  Ireland  has  been  deeply 
wronged  and  bitterly  oppressed  by  England,  it  is  not  true 
that  there  is  any  economic  oppression  of  Ireland  by  Eng¬ 
land  now.  To  whatever  cause  Irish  distress  may  be  due, 
it  is  certainly  not  due  to  the  existence  of  laws  which  press 
on  industry  more  heavily  in  Ireland  than  in  any  other 
part  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

And,  further  than  this,  the  Irish  land  system,  which  is 
so  much  talked  of  as  though  it  were  some  peculiarly 
atrocious  system,  is  essentially  the  same  land  system 
which  prevails  in  all  civilized  countries,  which  we  of  the 
United  States  have  accepted  unquestioningly,  and  have 
extended  over  the  whole  temperate  zone  of  a  new  conti¬ 
nent— the  same  system  which  all  over  the  civilized  world 
men  are  accustomed  to  consider  natural  and  just. 

Justice  Fitzgerald  is  unquestionably  right. 

As  to  England,  it  is  well  known  that  the  English  land¬ 
lords  exercise  freely  all  the  powers  complained  of  in 
the  Irish  landlords,  without  even  the  slight  restrictions 
imposed  in  Ireland. 

As  to  Belgium,  let  me  quote  the  high  authority  of  the 
distinguished  Belgian  publicist,  M.  Emile  de  Laveleye,  of 
the  University  of  Liege.  He  says  that  the  Belgian  tenant- 
farmers— for  tenancy  largely  prevails  even  where  the  land 
is  most  minutely  divided— are  rack-rented  with  a  merciless¬ 
ness  unknown  in  England  or  even  in  Ireland,  and  are 
compelled  to  vote  as  their  landlords  dictate ! 

And  as  to  the  United  States,  let  me  ask  the  men  who  to 
applauding  audiences  are  nightly  comparing  the  freedom 
of  America  with  the  oppression  of  Ireland— let  me  ask  the 
Representatives  who  voted  for  the  resolution  of  sympathy 
with  Ireland,  this  simple  question  :  What  would  the  Irish 
landlords  lose,  what  would  the  Irish  tenants  gain,  if, 


UNPALATABLE  TRUTH. 


9 


to-morrow,  Ireland  were  made  a  State  in  the  American 
Union  and  American  law  substituted  for  English  law  ? 

I  think  it  will  puzzle  them  to  reply.  The  truth  is  that 
the  gain  would  be  to  the  landlords,  the  loss  to  the  tenants. 
The  simple  truth  is,  that,  under  our  laws,  the  Irish  land¬ 
lords  could  rack-rent,  distrain,  evict,  or  absent  themselves, 
as  they  pleased,  and  without  any  restriction  from  Ulster 
tenant-right  or  legal  requirement  of  compensation  for 
improvements.  Under  our  laws  they  could,  just  as  freely 
as  they  can  now,  impose  whatever  terms  they  pleased  upon 
their  tenants — whether  as  to  cultivation,  as  to  improve¬ 
ments,  as  to  game,  as  to  marriages,  as  to  voting,  or  as  to 
anything  else.  For  these  powers  do  not  spring  from 
special  laws.  They  are  merely  incident  to  the  right  of 
property ;  they  result  simply  from  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  right  of  the  owner  of  land  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  his 
own— to  let  it,  or  not  let  it.  So  far  as  law  can  give  them 
to  him,  every  American  landlord  has  these  powers  as  fully 
as  any  Irish  landlord.  Cannot  the  American  owner  of 
land  make,  in  letting  it,  any  stipulation  he  pleases  as  to 
how  it  shall  be  used,  or  improved,  or  cultivated  ?  Can  he 
not  reserve  any  of  his  own  rights  upon  it,  such  as  the 
right  of  entry,  or  of  cutting  wood,  or  shooting  game,  or 
catching  fish  ?  And,  in  the  absence  of  special  agreement, 
does  not  American  law  give  him,  what  the  law  of  Ireland 
does  not  now  give  him,  the  ownership  at  the  expiration 
of  the  lease  of  all  the  improvements  made  by  the  tenant  ? 

What  single  power  has  the  Irish  landowner  that  the 
American  landowner  has  not  as  fully  ?  Is  not  the  Ameri- 
can  landlord  just  as  free  as  is  the  Irish  landlord  to  refuse 

to  rent  his  lands  or  his  houses  to  anv  one  who  does  not 

«/ 

attend  a  certain  church  or  vote  a  certain  ticket  ?  Is  he  not 
quite  as  free  to  do  this  as  he  is  free  to  refuse  his  contri¬ 
butions  to  all  but  one  particular  benevolent  society  or 
political  committee?  Or,  if,  not  liking  a  certain  news- 


10 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


paper,  he  chooses  to  give  notice  to  quit  to  any  tenant 
whom  he  finds  taking  that  newspaper,  what  law  can  be 
invoked  to  prevent  him?  There  is  none.  The  property 
is  his,  and  he  can  let  it,  or  not  let  it,  as  he  wills.  And, 
having  this  power  to  let  or  not  let,  he  has  power  to  demand 
any  terms  he  pleases. 

That  Ireland  is  a  conquered  country ;  that  centuries  ago 
her  soil  was  taken  from  its  native  possessors  and  parceled 
out  among  aliens,  and  that  it  has  been  confiscated  again 
and  again,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  real  question  of 
to-day—  no  more  to  do  with  it  than  have  the  confiscations 
of  Marius  and  Sylla.  England,  too,  is  a  conquered  coun¬ 
try  j  her  soil  has  been  confiscated  again  and  again ;  and, 
spite  of  all  talk  about  Saxon  and  Celt,  it  is  not  probable 
that,  after  the  admixture  of  generations,  the  division  of 
landholder  and  non-landholder  any  more  coincides  with 
distinction  of  race  in  the  one  country  than  in  the  other. 
That  Irish  land  titles  rest  on  force  and  fraud  is  true  j  but 
so  do  land  titles  in  every  country— even  to  a  large  extent 
in  our  own  peacefully  settled  country.  Even  in  our  most 
recently  settled  States,  how  much  land  is  there  to  which 
title  has  been  got  by  fraud  and  perjury  and  bribery— by 
the  arts  of  the  lobbyist  or  the  cunning  tricks  of  hired 
lawyers,  by  double-barreled  shotguns  and  repeating  rifles  ! 

The  truth  is  that  the  Irish  land  system  is  simply  the 
general  system  of  modern  civilization.  In  no  essential 
feature  does  it  differ  from  the  system  that  obtains  here¬ 
in  what  we  are  accustomed  to  consider  the  freest  country 
under  the  sun.  Entails  and  primogeniture  and  family 
settlements  may  be  in  themselves  bad  things,  and  may 
sometimes  interfere  with  putting  the  land  to  its  best  use, 
but  their  effects  upon  the  relations  of  landlord  and  tenant 
are  not  worth  talking  about.  As  for  rack-rent,  which  is 
simply  a  rent  fixed  at  short  intervals  by  competition,  that 
is  in  the  United  States  even  a  more  common  way  of  letting 


UNPALATABLE  TRUTH. 


11 


land  than  in  Ireland.  In  onr  cities  the  majority  of  onr 
people  live  in  houses  rented  from  month  to  month  or  year 
to  year  for  the  highest  price  the  landlord  thinks  he  can 
get.  The  usual  term,  in  the  newer  States,  at  least,  for  the 
letting  of  agricultural  land  is  from  season  to  season.  And 
that  the  rent  of  land  in  the  United  States  comes,  on  the 
whole,  more  closely  to  the  standard  of  rack,  or  full  com¬ 
petition  rent,  there  can  be,  I  think,  little  doubt.  That 
the  land  of  Ireland  is,  as  the  apologists  for  landlordism 
say,  largely  under-rented  (that  is,  not  rented  for  the  full 
amount  the  landlord  might  get  with  free  competition)  is 
probably  true.  Miss  C.  G.  O’Brien,  in  a  recent  article 
in  the  Nineteenth  Century ,  states  that  the  tenant-farmers 
generally  get  for  such  patches  as  they  sub-let  to  their 
laborers  twice  the  rent  they  pay  the  landlords.  And  we 
hear  incidentally  of  many  u  good  landlords,”  i.e.,  landlords 
not  in  the  habit  of  pushing  their  tenants  for  as  much  as 
they  might  get  by  rigorously  demanding  all  that  any  one 
would  give. 

These  things,  as  well  as  the  peculiar  bitterness  of  com¬ 
plaints  against  middlemen  and  the  speculators  who  have 
purchased  encumbered  estates  and  manage  them  solely 
with  a  view  to  profit,  go  to  show  the  truth  of  the  statement 
that  the  land  of  Ireland  has  been,  by  its  present  owners, 
largely  underlet,  when  considered  from  what  we  would 
deem  a  business  point  of  view.  And  this  is  but  what 
might  be  expected.  Human  nature  is  about  the  same  the 
world  over,  and  the  Irish  landlords  as  a  class  are  no 
better  nor  worse  than  would  be  other  men  under  like 
conditions.  An  aristocracy  such  as  that  of  Ireland  has  its 
virtues  as  well  as  its  vices,  and  is  influenced  by  sentiments 
which  do  not  enter  into  mere  business  transactions— sen¬ 
timents  which  must  often  modify  and  soften  the  calcula¬ 
tions  of  cold  self-interest.  But  with  us  the  letting  of  land 
is  as  much  a  business  matter  as  the  buying  or  selling  of 


12 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


wheat  or  of  stocks.  An  American  would  not  think  he  was 
showing  his  goodness  by  renting  his  land  for  low  rates, 
any  more  than  he  would  think  he  was  showing  his  good¬ 
ness  by  selling  wheat  for  less  than  the  market  price,  or 
stocks  for  less  than  the  quotations.  So  in  those  districts 
of  France  and  Belgium  where  the  land  is  most  sub-divided, 
the  peasant  proprietors,  says  M.  de  Laveleye,  boast  to  one 
another  of  the  high  rents  they  get,  just  as  they  boast  of 
the  high  prices  they  get  for  pigs  or  for  poultry. 

The  best  measure  of  rent  is,  of  course,  its  proportion 
to  the  produce.  The  only  estimate  of  Irish  rent  as  a 
proportion  of  which  I  know  is  that  of  Buckle,  who  puts 
it  at  one-fourth  of  the  produce.  In  this  country  I  am 
inclined  to  think  one-fourth  would  generally  be  considered 
a  moderate  rent.  Even  in  Calif ornia  there  is  considerable 
land  rented  for  one-third  the  crop,  and  some  that  rents 
for  one-half  the  crop ;  while,  according  to  a  writer  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly ,  the  common  rent  in  that  great  wheat¬ 
growing  section  of  the  New  Northwest  now  being  opened 
up  is  one-half  the  crop  ! 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  Justice  Fitzgerald’s  state¬ 
ment  can  be  disputed,  though  of  course  its  developments 
are  not  yet  as  strikingly  bad,  for  this  is  yet  a  new  country, 
and  tenants  are  comparatively  few,  and  land  comparatively 
easy  to  get.  The  American  land  system  is  really  worse 
for  the  tenant  than  the  Irish  system.  For  with  us  there 
is  neither  sentiment  nor  custom  to  check  the  force  of 
competition  or  mitigate  the  natural  desire  of  the  landlord 
to  get  all  he  can. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  our  system  to  prevent  or  check 
absenteeism,  so  much  complained  of  in  regard  to  Ireland. 
Before  the  modern  era,  which  has  so  facilitated  travel  and 
communication,  and  made  the  great  cities  so  attractive  to 
those  having  money  to  spend,  the  prevalence  of  Irish 
absenteeism  may  have  been  due  to  special  causes,  but  at 


UNPALATABLE  TRUTH. 


13 


the  present  day  there  is  certainly  nothing  peculiar  in  it. 
Most  of  the  large  English  and  Scotch  landholders  are 
absentees  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  and  many  of 
them  live  permanently  or  for  long  intervals  upon  the 
Continent.  So  are  our  large  American  landowners  gen¬ 
erally  absentees.  In  New  York,  in  San  Francisco,  in 
Washington,  Boston,  Chicago,  and  St.  Louis,  live  men  who 
own  large  tracts  of  land  which  they  seldom  or  never  see. 
A  resident  of  Rochester  is  said  to  own  no  less  than  four 
hundred  farms  in  different  States,  one  of  which  (I  believe 
in  Kentucky)  comprises  thirty-five  thousand  acres.  Under 
the  plantation  system  of  farming  and  that  of  stock-raising 
on  a  grand  scale,  which  are  developing  so  rapidly  in  our 
new  States,  very  much  of  the  profits  go  to  professional 
men  and  capitalists  who  live  in  distant  cities.  Corpora¬ 
tions  whose  stock  is  held  in  the  East  or  in  Europe  own 
much  greater  bodies  of  land,  at  much  greater  distances, 
than  do  the  London  corporations  possessing  landed  estates 
in  Ireland.  To  say  nothing  of  the  great  land-grant  rail¬ 
road  companies,  the  Standard  Oil  Company  probably  owns 
more  acres  of  Western  land  than  all  the  London  companies 
put  together  own  of  Irish  land.  And,  although  landlord¬ 
ism  in  its  grosser  forms  is  only  beginning  in  the  United 
States,  there  is  probably  no  American,  wherever  he  may 
live,  who  cannot  in  his  immediate  vicinity  see  some 
instance  of  absentee  landlordism.  The  tendency  to  con¬ 
centration  born  of  the  new  era  ushered  in  by  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  steam  shows  itself  in  this  way  as  in  many  others. 
To  those  who  can  live  where  they  please,  the  great  cities 
are  becoming  more  and  more  attractive. 

And  it  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  too  much  stress 
is  laid  upon  absenteeism,  and  that  it  might  be  prevented 
without  much  of  the  evil  often  attributed  to  it  being 
cured.  That  is  to  say,  that  to  his  tenantry  and  neighbor¬ 
hood  the  owner  of  land  in  Galway  or  Kilkenny  would  be 


14 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


as  much  an  absentee  if  he  lived  in  Dublin  as  if  he  lived 
in  London,  and  that,  if  Irish  landlords  were  compelled  to 
live  in  Ireland,  all  that  the  Irish  people  would  gain  would 
be,  metaphorically  speaking,  the  crumbs  that  fell  from 
the  landlords’  tables.  For  if  the  butter  and  eggs,  the  pigs 
and  the  poultry,  of  the  Irish  peasant  must  be  taken  from 
him  and  exported  to  pay  for  his  landlord’s  wine  and  cigars, 
what  difference  does  it  make  to  him  where  the  wine  is 
drunk  or  the  cigars  are  smoked  ? 


CHAPTER  II. 


DISTRESS  AND  FAMINE. 

BUT  it  will  be  asked :  If  the  land  system  which  prevails 
in  Ireland  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  which  pre¬ 
vails  elsewhere,  how  is  it  that  it  does  not  produce  the  same 
results  elsewhere  ? 

I  answer  that  it  does  everywhere  produce  the  same  kind 
of  results.  As  there  is  nothing  essentially  pecnliar  in  the 
Irish  land  system,  so  is  there  nothing  essentially  pecnliar 
in  Irish  distress.  Between  the  distress  in  Ireland  and  the 
distress  in  other  countries  there  may  be  differences  in 
degree  and  differences  in  manifestation ;  but  that  is  all. 

The  truth  is,  that  as  there  is  nothing  peculiar  in  the 
Irish  land  system,  so  is  there  nothing  peculiar  in  the  dis¬ 
tress  which  that  land  system  causes.  We  hear  a  great 
deal  of  Irish  emigration,  of  the  millions  of  sons  and 
daughters  of  Erin  who  have  been  compelled  to  leave  their 
native  soil.  But  have  not  the  Scottish  Highlands  been 
all  but  depopulated  ?  Do  not  the  English  emigrate  in  the 
same  way,  and  for  the  same  reasons  ?  Do  not  the  Germans 
and  Italians  and  Scandinavians  also  emigrate?  Is  there 
not  a  constant  emigration  from  the  Eastern  States  of  the 
Union  to  the  Western — an  emigration  impelled  by  the 
same  motives  as  that  which  sets  across  the  Atlantic  ?  Nor 
am  I  sure  that  this  is  not  in  some  respects  a  more  demoral¬ 
izing  emigration  than  the  Irish,  for  I  do  not  think  there 
is  any  such  monstrous  disproportion  of  the  sexes  in  Ire- 


16 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


land  as  in  Massachusetts.  If  French  and  Belgian  peasants 
do  not  emigrate  as  do  the  Irish,  is  it  not  simply  because 
they  do  not  have  such  “  long  families  ”  ? 

There  has  recently  been  deep  and  wide-spread  distress 
in  Ireland,  and  but  for  the  contributions  of  charity  many 
would  have  perished  for  want  of  food.  But,  to  say  nothing 
of  such  countries  as  India,  China,  Persia,  and  Syria,  is  it 
not  true  that  within  the  last  few  years  there  have  been 
similar  spasms  of  distress  in  the  most  highly  civilized 
countries — not  merely  in  Russia  and  in  Poland,  but  in 
Germany  and  England  ?  Yes,  even  in  the  United  States. 

Have  there  not  been,  are  there  not  constantly  occurring, 
in  all  these  countries,  times  when  the  poorest  classes  are 
reduced  to  the  direct  straits,  and  large  numbers  are  saved 
from  starvation  only  by  charity  ? 

When  there  is  famine  among  savages  it  is  because  food 
enough  is  not  to  be  had.  But  this  was  not  the  case  in  Ire¬ 
land.  In  any  part  of  Ireland,  during  the  height  of  what 
was  called  the  famine,  there  was  food  enough  for  whoever 
had  means  to  pay  for  it.  The  trouble  was  not  in  the 
scarcity  of  food.  There  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  real 
scarcity  of  food,  and  the  proof  of  it  is  that  food  did  not 
command  scarcity  prices.  During  all  the  so-called  famine, 
food  was  constantly  exported  from  Ireland  to  England, 
which  would  not  have  been  the  case  had  there  been  true 
famine  in  one  country  any  more  than  in  the  other.  During 
all  the  so-called  famine  a  practically  unlimited  supply  of 
American  meat  and  grain  could  have  been  poured  into 
Ireland,  through  the  existing  mechanism  of  exchange,  so 
quickly  that  the  relief  would  have  been  felt  instantane¬ 
ously.  Our  sending  of  supplies  in  a  national  war-ship 
was  a  piece  of  vulgar  ostentation,  fitly  paralleled  by  their 
ostentatious  distribution  in  British  gunboats  under  the 
nominal  superintendence  of  a  royal  prince.  Had  we  been 
bent  on  relief,  not  display,  we  might  have  saved  our 


DISTRESS  AND  FAMINE. 


17 


government  the  expense  of  fitting  up  its  antiquated  war¬ 
ship,  the  British  gunboats  their  coal,  the  Lord  Mayor  his 
dinner,  and  the  Royal  Prince  his  valuable  time.  A  cable 
draft,  turned  iu  Dublin  into  postal  orders,  would  have 
afforded  the  relief,  not  merely  much  more  easily  and 
cheaply,  but  in  less  time  than  it  took,  our  war-ship  to  get 
ready  to  receive  her  cargo  j  for  the  reason  that  so  many 
of  the  Irish  people  were  starving  was,  not  that  the  food 
was  not  to  be  had,  but  that  they  had  not  the  means  to 
buy  it.  Had  the  Irish  people  had  money  or  its  equivalent, 
the  bad  seasons  might  have  come  and  gone  without  stinting 
any  one  of  a  full  meal.  Their  effect  would  merely  have 
been  to  determine  toward  Ireland  the  flow  of  more  abun¬ 
dant  harvests. 

I  wish  clearly  to  bring  to  view  this  point.  The  Irish 
famine  was  not  a  true  famine  arising  from  scarcity  of 
food.  It  was  what  an  English  writer  styled  the  Indian 
famine — a  “  financial  famine/7  arising  not  from  scarcity  of 
food  but  from  the  poverty  of  the  people.  The  effect  of 
the  short  crops  in  producing  distress  was  not  so  much  in 
raising  the  price  of  food  as  in  cutting  off  the  accustomed 
incomes  of  the  people.  The  masses  of  the  Irish  people 
get  so  little  in  ordinary  times  that  they  are  barely  able  to 
live,  and  when  anything  occurs  to  interrupt  their  accus¬ 
tomed  incomes  they  have  nothing  to  fall  back  on. 

Yet  is  this  not  true  of  large  classes  in  all  countries? 
And  are  not  all  countries  subject  to  just  such  famines  as 
this  Irish  famine  ?  Good  seasons  and  bad  seasons  are  in 
the  order  of  nature,  just  as  the  day  of  sunshine  and  the 
day  of  rain,  the  summer’s  warmth  and  the  winter’s  snow. 
But  agriculture  is,  on  the  whole,  as  certain  as  any  other 
pursuit,  for  even  those  industries  which  may  be  carried 
on  regardless  of  weather  are  subject  to  alternations  as 
marked  as  those  to  which  agriculture  is  liable.  There  are 
good  seasons  and  bad  seasons  even  in  fishing  and  hunting, 


18 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


while  the  alternations  are  very  marked  in  mining  and  in 
manufacturing.  In  fact,  the  more  highly  differentiated 
branches  of  industry  which  advancing  civilization  tends 
to  develop,  though  less  directly  dependent  upon  rain  and 
sunshine,  heat  and  cold,  seem  increasingly  subject  to 
alternations  more  frequent  and  intense.  Though  in  a 
country  of  more  diversified  industry  the  failure  of  a  crop 
or  two  could  not  have  such  wide-spread  effects  as  in  Ire¬ 
land,  yet  the  countries  of  more  complex  industries  are 
liable  to  a  greater  variety  of  disasters.  A  war  on  another 
continent  produces  famine  in  Lancashire;  Parisian  mil¬ 
liners  decree  a  change  of  fashion,  and  Coven tr}^  operatives 
are  saved  from  starvation  only  by  public  alms ;  a  railroad 
combination  decides  to  raise  the  price  of  coal,  and  Penn¬ 
sylvania  miners  find  their  earnings  diminished  by  half  or 
totally  cut  off  j  a  bank  breaks  in  New  York,  and  in  all  the 
large  American  cities  soup-houses  must  be  opened ! 

In  this  Irish  famine  which  provoked  the  land  agitation, 
there  is  nothing  that  is  peculiar.  Such  famines  on  a 
smaller  or  a  larger  scale  are  constantly  occurring.  Nay, 
more !  the  fact  is,  that  famine,  just  such  famine  as  this 
Irish  famine,  constantly  exists  in  the  richest  and  most 
highly  civilized  lands.  It  persists  even  in  “  good  times  ” 
when  trade  is  u  booming ;  ”  it  spreads  and  rages  whenever 
from  any  cause  industrial  depression  conies.  It  is  kept 
under,  or  at  least  kept  from  showing  its  worst  phases,  by 
poor-rates  and  almshouses,  by  private  benevolence  and  by 
vast  organized  charities,  but  it  still  exists,  gnawing  in 
secret  when  it  does  not  openly  rage.  In  the  very  centers 
of  civilization,  where  the  machinery  of  production  and 
exchange  is  at  the  highest  point  of  efficiency,  where  bank- 
vaults  hold  millions,  and  show-windows  flash  with  more 
than  a  prince’s  ransom,  where  elevators  and  warehouses 
are  gorged  with  grain,  and  markets  are  piled  with  all 
things  succulent  and  toothsome,  where  the  dinners  of 


DISTRESS  AND  FAMINE. 


19 


Lucullus  are  eaten  every  day,  and,  if  it  be  but  cool,  the 
very  greyhounds  wear  dainty  blankets — in  these  centers 
of  wealth  and  power  and  refinement,  there  are  always 
hungry  men  and  women  and  little  children.  Never  the 
sun  goes  down  but  on  human  beings  prowling  like  wolves 
for  food,  or  huddling  together  like  vermin  for  shelter  and 
warmth.  u  Always  with  You”  is  the  significant  heading 
under  which  a  New  York  paper,  in  these  most  prosperous 
times,  publishes  daily  the  tales  of  chronic  famine  j  and  in 
the  greatest  and  richest  city  in  the  world — in  that  very 
London  where  the  plenty  of  meat  in  the  butchers’  shops 
seemed  to  some  savages  the  most  wondrous  of  all  its 
wonderful  sights — in  that  very  London,  the  mortuary 
reports  have  a  standing  column  for  deaths  by  starvation. 

But  no  more  in  its  chronic  than  in  its  spasmodic  forms 
is  famine  to  be  measured  by  the  deaths  from  starvation. 
Perfect,  indeed,  in  all  its  parts  must  be  the  human  machine 
if  it  can  run  till  the  last  bit  of  available  tissue  be  drawn 
on  to  feed  its  fires.  It  is  under  the  guise  of  disease  to 
which  physicians  can  give  less  shocking  names,  that 
famine— especially  the  chronic  famine  of  civilization — 
kills.  And  the  statistics  of  mortality,  especially  of  infant 
mortality,  show  that  in  the  richest  communities  famine  is 
constantly  at  its  work.  Insufficient  nourishment,  inade¬ 
quate  warmth  and  clothing,  and  unwholesome  surround¬ 
ings,  constantly,  in  the  very  centers  of  plenty,  swell  the 
death-rates.  What  is  this  but  famine — just  such  famine 
as  the  Irish  famine  ?  It  is  not  that  the  needed  things  are 
really  scarce ;  but  that  those  whose  need  is  direst  have  not 
the  means  to  get  them,  and,  when  not  relieved  by  charity, 
want  kills  them  in  its  various  ways.  When,  in  the  hot 
midsummer,  little  children  die  like  flies  in  the  New  York 
tenement  wards,  what  is  that  but  famine!  And  those 
barges  crowded  with  such  children  that  a  noble  and  tender 
charity  sends  down  New  York  Harbor  to  catch  the  fresh 


20 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


salt  breath  of  the  Atlantic— are  they  not  fighting  famine 
as  truly  as  were  our  food-laden  war-ship  and  the  Royal 
Prince’s  gunboats  ?  Alas  !  to  find  famine  one  has  not  to 
cross  the  sea. 

There  was  bitter  satire  in  the  cartoon  that  one  of  our 
illustrated  papers  published  when  subscriptions  to  the 
Irish  famine  fund  were  being  made— a  cartoon  that  repre¬ 
sented  James  Gordon  Bennett  sailing  away  for  Ireland 
in  a  boat  loaded  down  with  provisions,  while  a  sad-eyed, 
hungry-looking,  tattered  group  gazed  wistfully  on  them 
from  the  pier.  The  bite  and  the  bitterness  of  it,  the 
humiliating  sting  and  satire  of  it,  were  in  its  truth. 

This  is  “  the  home  of  freedom,”  and  u  the  asylum  of 
the  oppressed  •  ”  our  population  is  yet  sparse,  our  public 
domain  yet  wide  j  we  are  the  greatest  of  food  producers, 
yet  even  here  there  are  beggars,  tramps,  paupers,  men 
torn  by  anxiety  for  the  support  of  their  families,  women 
who  know  not  which  way  to  turn,  little  children  growing 
up  in  such  poverty  and  squalor  that  only  a  miracle  can 
keep  them  pure.  “  Always  with  you,”  even  here.  What 
is  the  week  or  the  day  of  the  week  that  our  papers  do  not 
tell  of  man  or  woman  who,  to  escape  the  tortures  of  want, 
has  stepped  out  of  life  unbidden?  What  is  this  but 
famine  ? 


CHAPTER  III. 


A  UNIVERSAL  QUESTION. 

IET  me  be  understood.  I  am  not  endeavoring  to  ex- 
J  cuse  or  belittle  Irish  distress.  I  am  merely  point¬ 
ing  out  that  distress  of  the  same  kind  exists  elsewhere. 
This  is  a  fact  I  want  to  make  clear,  for  it  has  hitherto,  in 
most  of  the  discussions  of  the  Irish  Land  Question,  been 
ignored.  And  without  an  appreciation  of  this  fact  the 
real  nature  of  the  Irish  Land  Question  is  not  understood, 
nor  the  real  importance  of  the  agitation  seen. 

What  I  contend  for  is  this :  That  it  is  a  mistake  to  con¬ 
sider  the  Irish  Land  Question  as  a  mere  local  question, 
arising  out  of  conditions  peculiar  to  Ireland,  and  which 
can  be  settled  by  remedies  that  can  have  but  local  appli¬ 
cation.  On  the  contrary,  I  contend  that  what  has  been 
brought  into  prominence  by  Irish  distress,  and  forced  into 
discussion  by  Irish  agitation,  is  something  infinitely  more 
important  than  any  mere  local  question  could  be;  it  is 
nothing  less  than  that  question  of  transcendent  importance 
which  is  everywhere  beginning  to  agitate,  and,  if  not 
settled,  must  soon  convulse  the  civilized  world— the  ques¬ 
tion  whether,  their  political  equality  conceded  (for,  where 
this  has  not  already  been,  it  soon  will  be),  the  masses  of 
mankind  are  to  remain  mere  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 
of  water  for  the  benefit  of  a  fortunate  few?  whether, 
having  escaped  from  feudalism,  modern  society  is  to  pass 
into  an  industrial  organization  more  grinding  and  oppres- 


22 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


sive,  more  heartless  and  hopeless,  than  feudalism  ?  whether, 
amid  the  abundance  their  labor  creates,  the  producers  of 
wealth  are  to  be  content  in  good  times  with  the  barest  of 
livings  and  in  bad  times  to  suffer  and  to  starve  ?  What 
is  involved  in  this  Irish  Land  Question  is  not  a  mere  local 
matter  between  Irish  landlords  and  Irish  tenants,  but  the 
great  social  problem  of  modern  civilization.  What  is 
arraigned  in  the  arraignment  of  the  claims  of  Irish  land¬ 
lords  is  nothing  less  than  the  wide-spread  institution  of 
private  property  in  land.  In  the  assertion  of  the  natural 
rights  of  the  Irish  people  is  the  assertion  of  the  natural  rights 
that,  by  virtue  of  his  existence,  pertain  everywhere  to  man. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Irish  agitators  did  not  at  first 
perceive  the  real  bearing  and  importance  of  the  question 
they  took  in  hand.  But  they— the  more  intelligent  and 
earnest  of  them,  at  least— must  now  begin  to  realize  it.* 
Yet,  save,  perhaps,  on  the  part  of  the  ultra-Tories,  who 
would  resist  any  concession  as  the  opening  of  a  door  that 
cannot  again  be  shut,  there  is  on  all  sides  a  disposition  to 
ignore  the  real  nature  of  the  question,  and  to  treat  it  as 
springing  from  conditions  peculiar  to  Ireland.  On  the 
one  hand,  there  is  a  large  class  in  England  and  elsewhere, 
who,  while  willing  to  concede  or  even  actually  desire 
that  something  should  be  done  for  Ireland,  fear  any 
extension  of  the  agitation  into  a  questioning  of  the  rights 
of  landowners  elsewhere.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Irish  leaders  seem  anxious  to  confine  attention  in  the  same 
way,  evidently  fearing  that,  should  the  question  assume 
a  broader  aspect,  strong  forces  now  with  them  might  fall 
away  and,  perhaps  to  a  large  extent,  become  directly  and 
strongly  antagonistic. 

*  The  Irish  World ,  which,  though  published  in  New  York,  has 
exerted  a  large  influence  upon  the  agitation  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic,  does  realize,  and  has  from  the  first  frankly  declared,  that 
the  fight  must  be  against  landlordism  in  toto  and  everywhere. 


A  UNIVERSAL  QUESTION. 


23 


But  it  is  not  possible  so  to  confine  the  discussion ;  no 
more  possible  than  it  was  possible  to  confine  to  France 
the  questions  involved  in  the  French  Revolution;  no 
more  possible  than  it  was  possible  to  keep  the  discussion 
which  arose  over  slavery  in  the  Territories  confined  to  the 
subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  And  it  is  best  that 
the  truth  be  fully  stated  and  clearly  recognized.  He  who 
sees  the  truth,  let  him  proclaim  it,  without  asking  who  is 
for  it  or  who  is  against  it.  This  is  not  radicalism  in  the 
bad  sense  which  so  many  attach  to  the  word.  This  is 
conservatism  in  the  true  sense. 

What  gives  to  the  Irish  Land  Question  its  supreme 
significance  is  that  it  brings  into  attention  and  discussion 
—nay,  that  it  forces  into  attention  and  discussion,  not  a 
mere  Irish  question,  but  a  question  of  world-wide  impor¬ 
tance. 

What  has  brought  the  land  question  to  the  front  in 
Ireland,  what  permits  the  relation  between  land  and  labor 
to  be  seen  there  with  such  distinctness— to  be  seen  even 
by  those  who  cannot  in  other  places  perceive  them— is 
certain  special  conditions.  Ireland  is  a  country  of  dense 
population,  so  that  competition  for  the  use  of  land  is  so 
sharp  and  high  as  to  produce  marked  effects  upon  the 
distribution  of  wealth.  It  is  mainly  an  agricultural  coun¬ 
try,  so  that  production  is  concerned  directly  and  unmis¬ 
takably  with  the  soil.  Its  industrial  organization  is  largely 
that  simple  one  in  which  an  employing  capitalist  does  not 
stand  between  laborer  and  landowner,  so  that  the  connec¬ 
tion  between  rent  and  wages  is  not  obscured.  Ireland, 
moreover,  was  never  conquered  by  the  Romans,  nor,  until 
comparatively  recently,  by  any  people  who  had  felt  in  their 
legal  system  the  effect  of  Roman  domination.  It  is  the 
European  country  in  which  primitive  ideas  as  to  land 
tenures  have  longest  held  their  sway,  and  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  its  conquest,  its  cruel  misgovernment,  and  the 


24 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


differences  of  race  and  religion  between  the  masses  of  the 
people  and  those  among  whom  the  land  was  parceled, 
have  tended  to  preserve  old  traditions  and  to  direct  the 
strength  of  Irish  feeling  and  the  fervor  of  Irish  imagina¬ 
tion  against  a  system  which  forces  the  descendant  of  the 
ancient  possessors  of  the  soil  to  pay  tribute  for  it  to  the 
representative  of  a  hated  stranger.  It  is  for  these  reasons 
that  the  connection  between  Irish  distress  and  Irish  land¬ 
lordism  is  so  easily  seen  and  readily  realized. 

But  does  not  the  same  relation  exist  between  English 
pauperism  and  English  landlordism— between  American 
tramps  and  the  American  land  system?  Essentially  the 
same  land  system  as  that  of  Ireland  exists  elsewhere,  and, 
wherever  it  exists,  distress  of  essentially  the  same  kind  is 
to  be  seen.  And  elsewhere,  just  as  certainly  as  in  Ireland, 
is  the  connection  between  the  two  that  of  cause  and  effect. 

When  the  agent  of  the  Irish  landlord  takes  from  the 
Irish  cottier  for  rent  his  pigs,  his  poultry,  or  his  potatoes, 
or  the  money  that  he  gains  by  the  sale  of  these  things,  it 
is  clear  enough  that  this  rent  comes  from  the  earnings  of 
labor,  and  diminishes  what  the  laborer  gets.  But  is  not 
this  in  reality  just  as  clear  when  a  dozen  middlemen  stand 
between  laborer  and  landlord?  Is  it  not  just  as  clear 
when,  instead  of  being  paid  monthly  or  quarterly  or 
yearly,  rent  is  paid  in  a  lumped  sum  called  purchase- 
money?  Whence  come  the  incomes  which  the  owners 
of  land  in  mining  districts,  in  manufacturing  districts,  or 
in  commercial  districts,  receive  for  the  use  of  their  land  ? 
Manifestly,  they  must  come  from  the  earnings  of  labor — 
there  is  no  other  source  from  which  they  can  come.  From 
what  are  the  revenues  of  Trinity  Church  corporation 
drawn,  if  not  from  the  earnings  of  labor?  What  is  the 
source  of  the  income  of  the  Astors,  if  it  is  not  the  labor 
of  laboring-men,  women,  and  children?  When  a  man 
makes  a  fortune  by  the  rise  of  real  estate,  as  in  New  York 


A  UNIVERSAL  QUESTION. 


25 


and  elsewhere  many  men  have  done  within  the  past  few 
months,  what  does  it  mean  ?  It  means  that  he  may  have 
fine  clothes,  costly  food,  a  grand  house  luxuriously  fur¬ 
nished,  etc.  Now,  these  things  are  not  the  spontaneous 
fruits  of  the  soil ;  neither  do  they  fall  from  heaven,  nor 
are  they  cast  up  by  the  sea.  They  are  products  of  labor 
—can  be  produced  only  by  labor.  And  hence,  if  men 
who  do  no  labor  get  them,  it  must  necessarily  be  at  the 
expense  of  those  who  do  labor. 

It  may  seem  as  if  I  were  needlessly  dwelling  upon  a 
truth  apparent  by  mere  statement.  Yet,  simple  as  this 
truth  is,  it  is  persistently  ignored.  This  is  the  reason 
that  the  true  relation  and  true  importance  of  the  question 
which  has  come  to  the  front  in  Ireland  are  so  little  realized. 

To  give  an  illustration  :  In  his  article  in  the  North 
American  Review  last  year,  Mr.  Parnell  speaks  as  though 
the  building  up  of  manufactures  in  Ireland  would  lessen 
the  competition  for  land.  What  justification  for  such  a 
view  is  there  either  in  theory  or  in  fact  ?  Can  manufac¬ 
turing  be  carried  on  without  land  any  more  than  agricul¬ 
ture  can  be  carried  on  without  land  ?  Is  not  competition 
for  land  measured  by  price,  and,  if  Ireland  were  a  manu¬ 
facturing  country,  would  not  the  value  of  her  land  be 
greater  than  now  ?  Had  English  clamor  for  u  protection 
to  home  industry  ”  not  been  suffered  to  secure  the  stran¬ 
gling  of  Irish  industries  in  their  infan cy,  Ireland  might 
now  be  more  of  a  manufacturing  country  with  larger 
population  and  a  greater  aggregate  production  of  wealth. 
But  the  tribute  which  the  landowners  could  have  taken 
would  likewise  have  been  greater.  Put  a  Glasgow,  a 
Manchester,  or  a  London  in  one  of  the  Irish  agricultural 
counties,  and,  where  the  landlords  now  take  pounds  in 
rent,  they  would  be  enabled  to  demand  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  pounds.  And  it  would  necessarily  come 
from  the  same  source— the  ultimate  source  of  all  incomes 


26 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


—the  earnings  of  labor.  That  so  large  a  proportion  of 
the  laboring-class  would  not  have  to  compete  with  each 
other  for  agricultural  land  is  true.  But  they  would  have 
to  do  what  is  precisely  the  same  thing.  They  would  have 
to  compete  with  each  other  for  employment— for  the 
opportunity  to  make  a  living.  And  there  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  this  competition  would  be  less  intense  than 
now.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of 
England  and  Scotland,  just  as  in  the  agricultural  districts 
of  Ireland,  the  competition  for  the  privilege  of  earning  a 
living  forces  wages  to  such  a  minimum  as,  even  in  good 
times,  will  give  only  a  living. 

What  is  the  difference?  The  Irish  peasant  cultivator 
hires  his  little  farm  from  a  landlord,  and  pays  rent  directly. 
The  English  agricultural  laborer  hires  himself  to  an 
employing  farmer  who  hires  the  land,  and  who  out  of  the 
produce  pays  to  the  one  his  wages  and  to  the  other  his 
rent.  In  both  cases  competition  forces  the  laborer  down 
to  a  bare  living  as  a  net  return  for  his  work,  and  only 
stops  at  that  point  because,  when  men  do  not  get  enough 
to  live  on,  they  die  and  cease  to  compete.  And,  in  the 
same  way,  competition  forces  the  employing  farmer  to 
give  up  to  the  landlord  all  that  he  has  left  after  paying 
wages,  save  the  ordinary  returns  of  capital— for  the  profits 
of  the  English  farmer  do  not,  on  the  average,  I  understand,* 
exceed  five  or  six  per  cent.  And  in  other  businesses,  such 
as  manufacturing,  competition  in  the  same  way  forces 
down  wages  to  the  minimum  of  a  bare  living,  while  rent 
goes  up  and  up.  Thus  is  it  clear  that  no  change  in 
methods  or  improvements  in  the  processes  of  industry 
lessens  the  landlord’s  power  of  claiming  the  lion’s  share. 

I  am  utterly  unable  to  see  in  what  essential  thing  the 
condition  of  the  Irish  peasant  would  be  a  whit  improved 
were  Ireland  as  rich  as  England,  and  her  industries  as 
diversified.  For  the  Irish  peasant  is  not  to  be  compared 


A  UNIVERSAL  QUESTION. 


27 


with  the  English  tenant-farmer,  who  is  really  a  capitalist, 
hut  with  the  English  agricultural  laborer  and  the  lowest 
class  of  factory  operatives.  Surely  their  condition  is  not 
so  much  better  than  that  of  the  Irish  peasant  as  to  make 
a  difference  worth  talking  about.  On  the  contrary,  miser¬ 
able  as  is  the  condition  of  the  Irish  peasantry,  sickening 
as  are  the  stories  of  their  suffering,  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  for  the  worst  instances  of  human  degradation  one 
must  go  to  the  reports  that  describe  the  condition  of  the 
laboring  poor  of  England,  rather  than  to  the  literature  of 
Irish  misery.  For  there  are  three  things  for  which,  in 
spite  of  their  poverty  and  wretchedness  and  occasional 
famine,  the  very  poorest  of  Irish  peasants  are  by  all 
accounts  remarkable — the  physical  vigor  of  their  men,  the 
purity  of  their  women,  and  the  strength  of  the  family 
affections.  This,  to  put  it  mildly,  cannot  be  said  of  large 
classes  of  the  laboring  populations  of  England  and  Scot¬ 
land.  In  those  rich  manufacturing  districts  are  classes 
stunted  and  deteriorated  physically  by  want  and  unwhole¬ 
some  employments;  classes  in  which  the  idea  of  female 
virtue  is  all  but  lost,  and  the  family  affections  all  but 
trodden  out. 

But  it  is  needless  to  compare  sufferings  and  measure 
miseries.  I  merely  wish  to  correct  that  impression  which 
leads  so  many  people  to  talk  and  write  as  though  rent  and 
land  tenures  related  solely  to  agriculture  and  to  agricul¬ 
tural  communities.  Nothing  could  be  more  erroneous. 
Land  is  necessary  to  all  production,  no  matter  what  be 
its  kind  or  form ;  land  is  the  standing-place,  the  workshop, 
the  storehouse  of  labor ;  it  is  to  the  human  being  the  only 
means  by  which  he  can  obtain  access  to  the  material 
universe  or  utilize  its  powers.  Without  land  man  cannot 
exist.  To  whom  the  ownership  of  land  is  given,  to  him  is 
given  the  virtual  ownership  of  the  men  who  must  live 
upon  it.  When  this  necessity  is  absolute,  then  does  he 


28 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


necessarily  become  their  absolute  master.  And  just  as 
this  point  is  neared— that  is  to  say,  just  as  competition 
increases  the  demand  for  land— just  in  that  degree  does 
the  power  of  taking  a  larger  and  larger  share  of  the  earn¬ 
ings  of  labor  increase.  It  is  this  power  that  gives  land 
its  value ;  this  is  the  power  that  enables  the  owner  of  valu¬ 
able  land  to  reap  where  he  has  not  sown— to  appropriate 
to  himself  wealth  which  he  has  had  no  share  in  producing. 
Rent  is  always  the  devourer  of  wages.  The  owner  of  city 
land  takes,  in  the  rents  he  receives  for  his  land,  the  earn¬ 
ings  of  labor  just  as  clearly  as  does  the  owner  of  farming 
land.  And  whether  he  be  working  in  a  garret  ten  stories 
above  the  street,  or  in  a  mining  drift  thousands  of  feet 
below  the  earth’s  surface,  it  is  the  competition  for  the  use 
of  land  that  ultimately  determines  what  proportion  of  the 
produce  of  his  labor  the  laborer  will  get  for  himself.  This 
is  the  reason  why  modern  progress  does  not  tend  to  extir¬ 
pate  poverty ;  this  is  the  reason  why,  with  all  the  inventions 
and  improvements  and  economies  which  so  enormously 
increase  productive  power,  wages  everywhere  tend  to  the 
minimum  of  a  bare  living.  The  cause  that  in  Ireland 
produces  poverty  and  distress— the  ownership  by  some  of 
the  people  of  the  land  on  which  and  from  which  the  whole 
people  must  live— everywhere  else  produces  the  same 
results.  It  is  this  that  produces  the  hideous  squalor  of 
London  and  Glasgow  slums;  it  is  this  that  makes  want 
jostle  luxury  in  the  streets  of  rich  New  York,  that  forces 
little  children  to  monotonous  and  stunting  toil  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts  mills,  and  that  fills  the  highways  of  our  newest 
States  with  tramps. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


PROPOSED  REMEDIES. 

THE  facts  we  have  been  considering  give  to  the  Irish 
agitation  a  significance  and  dignity  that  no  effort 
for  the  redress  of  merely  local  grievances,  no  struggle  for 
mere  national  independence  could  have.  As  the  cause 
which  produces  Irish  distress  exists  everywhere  throughout 
modern  civilization,  and  everywhere  produces  the  same 
results,  the  question  as  to  what  measures  will  fully  meet 
the  case  of  Ireland  has  for  us  not  merely  a  speculative 
and  sentimental  interest,  hut  a  direct  and  personal  interest. 

For  a  year  and  more  the  English  journals  and  magazines 
have  been  teeming  with  articles  on  the  Irish  Land  Ques¬ 
tion  ;  but,  among  all  the  remedies  proposed,  even  by  men 
whose  reputation  is  that  of  clear  thinkers  and  advanced 
Liberals,  I  have  seen  nothing  which  shows  any  adequate 
grasp  of  the  subject.  And  this  is  true  also  of  the  mea¬ 
sures  proposed  by  the  agitators,  so  far  as  they  have  pro¬ 
posed  any.  They  are  illogical  and  insufficient  to  the  last 
degree.  They  neither  disclose  any  clear  principle  nor  do 
they  aim  at  any  result  worth  the  struggle. 

From  the  most  timid  to  the  most  radical,  these  schemes 
are  restricted  to  one  or  more  of  the  following  proposi¬ 
tions  : 

1st.  To  abolish  entails  and  primogenitures  and  other 
legal  difficulties  in  the  way  of  sales. 

2d.  To  legalize  and  extend  tenant-right. 


30 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


3d.  To  establish  tribunals  of  arbitrament  which  shall 
decide  upon  appeal  the  rent  to  be  paid. 

4th.  To  have  the  State  buy  out  the  landlords  and  sell 
again  on  time  to  the  tenants. 

The  first  of  these  propositions  is  good  in  itself.  To 
make  the  transfer  of  land  easy  would  be  to  remove  obsta¬ 
cles  which  prevent  its  passing  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
would  make  the  most  out  of  it.  But,  so  far  as  this  will 
have  any  effect  at  all,  it  will  not  be  toward  giving  the 
Irish  tenants  more  merciful  landlords  ;  nor  yet  will  it  be 
to  the  diffusion  of  landed  property.  Those  who  think  so 
shut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  tendency  of  the  time 
is  to  concentration. 

As  for  the  propositions  which  look  in  various  forms  to 
the  establishment  of  tenant-right,  it  is  to  be  observed  that, 
in  so  far  as  they  go  beyond  giving  the  tenant  surety  for 
his  improvements,  they  merely  carve  out  of  the  estate  of 
the  landlord  an  estate  for  the  tenant.  Even  if  the  pro¬ 
posal  to  empower  the  courts,  in  cases  of  dispute,  to  decide 
what  is  a  fair  rent  were  to  amount  to  anything  (and  the 
Land  Leaguers  say  it  would  not),  the  fixing  of  a  lower 
rent  as  the  share  of  the  landlord  would  merely  enable  the 
tenant  to  charge  a  higher  price  to  his  successor.  What¬ 
ever  might  thus  be  done  for  present  agricultural  tenants 
would  be  of  no  use  to  future  tenants,  and  nothing  what¬ 
ever  would  be  done  for  the  masses  of  the  people.  In  fact, 
that  the  effect  would  be  to  increase  rent  in  the  aggregate 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  Whatever  modification  might  be 
made  in  the  landlord’s  demands,  the  sum  which  the  out¬ 
going  tenant  would  ask  would  be  very  certain  to  be  all  he 
could  possibly  get,  so  that  rent  in  the  aggregate,  instead 
of  being  diminished,  would  be  screwed  up  to  the  full 
competition  or  rack-rent  standard. 

What  seem  to  be  considered  the  most  radical  proposi¬ 
tions  yet  made  are  those  for  the  creation  of  a  “  peasant 


PROPOSED  REMEDIES. 


31 


proprietary  the  State  to  buy  out  the  landlords  and  resell 
to  the  tenants,  for  annual  payments  extending  over  a  term 
of  years,  and  covering  principal  and  interest.  Waiving 
all  practical  difficulties,  and  they  are  very  great,  what 
could  thus  be  accomplished  ?  Nothing  real  and  permanent. 
For  not  merely  is  this,  too,  but  a  partial  measure,  which 
could  not  improve  the  condition  of  the  masses  of  the  people 
or  help  those  most  needing  help,  but  no  sooner  were  the 
lands  thus  divided  than  a  process  of  concentration  would 
infallibly  set  in  which  would  be  all  the  more  rapid  from 
the  fact  that  the  new  landholders  would  be  heavily  mort¬ 
gaged.  The  tendency  to  concentration  which  has  so 
steadily  operated  in  Great  Britain,  and  is  so  plainly  show¬ 
ing  itself  in  our  new  States,  must  operate  in  Ireland,  and 
would  immediately  begin  to  weld  together  again  the  little 
patches  of  the  newly  created  peasant  proprietors.  The 
tendency  of  the  time  is  against  peasant  proprietorships ; 
it  is  in  everything  to  concentration,  not  to  separation. 
The  tendency  which  has  wiped  out  the  small  landowners, 
the  boasted  yeomanry,  of  England— which  in  our  new 
States  is  uniting  the  quarter-sections  of  preemption  and 
homestead  settlers  into  great  farms  of  thousands  of  acres 
—is  already  too  strong  to  be  resisted,  and  is  constantly 
becoming  stronger  and  more  penetrating.  For  it  springs 
from  the  inventions  and  improvements  and  economies 
which  are  transforming  modern  industry— the  same  influ¬ 
ences  which  are  concentrating  population  in  large  cities, 
business  into  the  hands  of  great  houses,  and  for  the 
blacksmith  making  his  own  nails  or  the  weaver  working  his 
own  loom  substitute  the  factory  of  the  great  corporation. 

That  a  great  deal  that  the  English  advocates  of 
peasant  proprietorship  have  to  say  about  the  results  of 
their  favorite  system  in  continental  Europe  is  not  borne 
out  by  the  facts,  any  one  who  chooses  to  look  over  the 
testimony  may  see.  But  it  is  useless  to  discuss  that. 


32 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Peasant  proprietorship  in  continental  Europe  is  a  sur¬ 
vival.  It  exists  only  among  populations  which  have  not 
felt  fully  the  breath  of  the  new  era.  It  continues  to  exist 
only  by  virtue  of  conditions  which  do  not  obtain  in  Ireland. 
The  Irish  peasant  is  not  the  French  or  Belgian  peasant. 
He  is  in  the  habit  of  having  very  “long  families,”  they 
very  short  ones.  He  has  become  familiar  with  the  idea 
of  emigrating  j  they  have  not.  He  can  hardly  be  expected 
to  have  acquired  those  habits  of  close  economy  and  careful 
forethought  for  which  they  are  so  remarkable ;  and  there 
are  various  agencies,  among  which  are  to  be  counted  the 
national  schools  and  the  reaction  from  America,  that  have 
roused  in  him  aspirations  and  ambitions  which  would 
prevent  him  from  continuing  to  water  his  little  patch 
with  his  sweat,  as  do  the  French  and  Belgian  peasant 
proprietors,  when  he  could  sell  it  for  enough  to  emigrate. 
Peasant  proprietorship,  like  that  of  France  and  Belgium, 
might  possibly  have  been  instituted  in  Ireland  some  time 
ago,  before  the  railroad  and  the  telegraph  and  the  national 
schools  and  the  establishment  of  the  steam  bridge  across 
the  Atlantic.  But  to  do  it  now  to  any  extent,  and  with 
any  permanency,  seems  to  me  about  a-s  practicable  as  to 
go  back  to  hand-loom  weaving  in  Manchester.  Much 
more  in  accordance  with  modern  tendencies  is  the  notice 
I  have  recently  seen  of  the  formation  of  a  company  to 
buy  up  land  in  Southern  Ireland,  and  cultivate  it  on  a 
large  scale  j  for  to  production  on  a  large  scale  modern 
processes  more  and  more  strongly  tend.  It  is  not  merely 
the  steam-plow  and  harvesting  machinery  that  make  the 
cultivation  of  the  large  field  more  profitable  than  that  of 
the  small  one ;  it  is  the  railroad,  the  telegraph,  the  mani¬ 
fold  inventions  of  all  sorts.  Even  butter  and  cheese  are 
now  made  and  chickens  hatched  and  fattened  in  factories. 

But  the  fatal  defect  of  all  these  schemes  as  remedial 
measures  is,  that  they  do  not  go  to  the  cause  of  the  disease. 


PROPOSED  REMEDIES. 


33 


What  they  propose  to  do,  they  propose  to  do  for  merely 
one  class  of  the  Irish  people— the  agricultural  tenants. 
Now,  the  agricultural  tenants  are  not  so  large  nor  so  poor 
a  class  (among  them  are  in  fact  many  large  capitalist 
farmers  of  the  English  type)  as  the  agricultural  laborers, 
while  besides  these  there  are  the  laborers  of  other  kinds— 
the  artisans,  operatives,  and  poorer  classes  of  the  cities. 
What  extension  of  tenant-right  or  conversion  of  tenant- 
farmers  into  partial  or  absolute  proprietors  is  to  benefit 
them  ?  Even  if  the  number  of  owners  of  Irish  soil  could 
thus  be  increased,  the  soil  of  Ireland  would  still  be  in  the 
hands  of  a  class,  though  of  a  somewhat  larger  class.  And 
the  spring  of  Irish  misery  would  be  untouched.  Those 
who  had  merely  their  labor  would  be  as  badly  off  as  now, 
if  not  in  some  respects  worse  off.  Rent  would  soon  devour 
wages,  and  the  injustice  involved  in  the  present  system 
would  be  intrenched  by  the  increase  in  the  number  who 
seemingly  profit  by  it. 

It  is  that  peasant  proprietors  would  strengthen  the 
existing  system  that  makes  schemes  for  creating  them  so 
popular  among  certain  sections  of  the  propertied  classes 
of  Great  Britain.  This  is  the  ground  on  which  these 
schemes  are  largely  urged.  These  small  landowners  are 
desired  that  they  may  be  used  as  a  buffer  and  bulwark 
against  any  questioning  of  the  claims  of  the  larger  owners. 
They  would  be  put  forward  to  resist  the  shock  of  u  agrari¬ 
anism,”  just  as  the  women  are  put  forward  in  resistance 
to  the  process-servers.  u  What !  do  you  propose  to  rob 
these  poor  peasants  of  their  little  homesteads  ?  ”  would  be 
the  answer  to  any  one  who  proposed  to  attack  the  system 
under  which  the  larger  landholders  draw  millions  annually 
from  the  produce  of  labor. 

•And  here  is  the  danger  in  the  adoption  of  measures  not 
based  upon  correct  principles.  They  fail  not  only  to  do 
any  real  and  permanent  good,  but  they  make  proper 


34 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


measures  more  difficult.  Even  if  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  Ireland  were  made  the  owners  of  the  soil,  the  injustice 
to  the  minority  would  be  as  great  as  now,  and  wages 
would  still  tend  to  the  minimum,  which  in  good  times 
means  a  bare  living,  and  in  bad  times  means  starvation. 
Even  were  it  possible  to  cut  up  the  soil  of  Ireland  into 
those  little  patches  into  which  the  soil  of  France  and 
Belgium  is  cut  in  the  districts  where  the  morcellement 
prevails,  this  would  not  be  the  attainment  of  a  just  and 
healthy  social  state.  But  it  would  make  the  attainment 
of  a  just  and  healthy  social  state  much  more  difficult. 


CHAPTER  V. 


WHOSE  LAND  IS  IT? 

WHAT,  then,  is  the  true  solution  of  the  Irish  problem  ? 

The  answer  is  as  important  to  other  countries  as 
to  Ireland,  for  the  Irish  problem  is  but  a  local  phase  of 
the  great  problem  which  is  everywhere  pressing  upon  the 
civilized  world. 

With  the  leaders  of  the  Irish  movement,  the  question 
is,  of  course,  not  merely  what  ought  to  be  done,  but  what 
can  be  done.  But,  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  whole 
subject,  the  question  of  principle  must  necessarily  precede 
that  of  method.  We  must  decide  where  we  want  to  go 
before  we  can  decide  what  is  the  best  road  to  take. 

The  first  question  that  naturally  arises  is  that  of  right. 
Among  whatever  kind  of  people  such  a  matter  as  this  is 
discussed,  the  question  of  right  is  sure  to  be  raised.  This, 
to  me,  seems  a  very  significant  thing ;  for  I  believe  it  to 
spring  from  nothing  less  than  a  universal  perception  of 
the  human  mind — a  perception  often  dim  and  vague,  yet 
still  a  universal  perception,  that  justice  is  the  supreme  law 
of  the  universe,  so  that,  as  a  short  road  to  what  is  best, 
we  instinctively  ask  what  is  right  ? 

Now,  what  are  the  rights  of  this  case  ?  To  whom  right¬ 
fully  does  the  soil  of  Ireland  belong?  Who  are  justly 
entitled  to  its  use  and  to  all  the  benefits  that  flow  from  its 
use?  Let  us  settle  this  question  clearly  and  decisively, 
before  we  attempt  anything  else. 


36 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Let  me  go  to  the  heart  of  this  question  by  asking 
another  question :  Has  or  has  not  the  child  born  in  Ireland 
a  right  to  live  ?  There  can  be  but  one  answer,  for  no  one 
would  contend  that  it  was  right  to  drown  Irish  babies,  or 
that  any  human  law  could  make  it  right.  Well,  then,  if 
every  human  being  born  in  Ireland  has  a  right  to  live  in 
Ireland,  these  rights  must  be  equal.  If  each  one  has  a 
right  to  live,  then  no  one  can  have  any  better  right  to  live 
than  any  other  one.  There  can  be  no  dispute  about  this. 
No  one  will  contend  that  it  would  be  any  less  a  crime  to 
drown  a  baby  of  an  Irish  peasant  woman  than  it  would 
be  to  drown  the  baby  of  the  proudest  duchess,  or  that  a 
law  commanding  the  one  would  be  any  more  justifiable 
than  a  law  commanding  the  other. 

Since,  then,  all  the  Irish  people  have  the  same  equal 
right  to  life,  it  follows  that  they  must  all  have  the  same 
equal  right  to  the  land  of  Ireland.  If  they  are  all  in  Ire¬ 
land  by  the  same  equal  permission  of  Nature,  so  that  no 
one  of  them  can  justly  set  up  a  superior  claim  to  life  than 
any  other  one  of  them ;  so  that  all  the  rest  of  them  could 
not  justly  say  to  any  one  of  them,  “  You  have  not  the  same 
right  to  live  as  we  have ;  therefore  we  will  pitch  you  out 
of  Ireland  into  the  sea !  ”  then  they  must  all  have  the 
same  equal  rights  to  the  elements  which  Nature  has  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  sustaining  of  life — to  air,  to  water,  and  to 
land.  For  to  deny  the  equal  right  to  the  elements  neces¬ 
sary  to  the  maintaining  of  life  is  to  deny  the  equal  right 
to  life.  Any  law  that  said,  “  Certain  babies  have  no  right 
to  the  soil  of  Ireland ;  therefore  thejr  shall  be  thrown  off 
the  soil  of  Ireland ; ”  would  be  precisely  equivalent  to  a 
law  that  said,  u  Certain  babies  have  no  right  to  live ; 
therefore  they  shall  be  thrown  into  the  sea.”  And  as  no 
law  or  custom  or  agreement  can  justify  the  denial  of  the 
equal  right  to  life,  so  no  law  or  custom  or  agreement  can 
justify  the  denial  of  the  equal  right  to  land. 


WHOSE  LAND  IS  IT  ? 


37 


It  therefore  follows,  from  the  -very  fact  of  their  exis¬ 
tence,  that  the  right  of  each  one  of  the  people  of  Ireland 
to  an  equal  share  in  the  land  of  Ireland  is  equal  and 
inalienable :  that  is  to  say,  that  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
land  of  Ireland  belong  rightfully  to  the  whole  people  of 
Ireland,  to  each  one  as  much  as  to  every  other  j  to  no  one 
more  than  to  any  other— not  to  some  individuals,  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  individuals;  not  to  one  class,  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  classes ;  not  to  landlords,  not  to  tenants, 
not  to  cultivators,  but  to  the  whole  people. 

This  right  is  irrefutable  and  indefeasible.  It  pertains 
to  and  springs  from  the  fact  of  existence,  the  right  to  live. 
No  law,  no  covenant,  no  agreement,  can  bar  it.  One 
generation  cannot  stipulate  away  the  rights  of  another 
generation.  If  the  whole  people  of  Ireland  were  to  unite 
in  bargaining  away  their  rights  in  the  land,  how  could 
they  justly  bargain  away  the  right  of  the  child  who  the 
next  moment  is  born  ?  No  one  can  bargain  away  what  is 
not  his ;  no  one  can  stipulate  away  the  rights  of  another. 
And  if  the  new-born  infant  has  an  equal  right  to  life,  then 
has  it  an  equal  right  to  land.  Its  warrant,  which  comes 
direct  from  Nature,  and  which  sets  aside  all  human  laws 
or  title-deeds,  is  the  fact  that  it  is  born. 

Here  we  have  a  firm,  self-apparent  principle  from  which 
we  may  safely  proceed.  The  land  of  Ireland  does  not 
belong  to  one  individual  more  than  to  another  individual ; 
to  one  class  more  than  to  another  class ;  to  one  generation 
more  than  to  the  generations  that  come  after.  It  belongs 
to  the  whole  people  who  at  the  time  exist  upon  it. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


LANDLORDS’  RIGHT  IS  LABOR’S  WRONG. 

IDO  not  dwell  upon  this  principle  because  it  has  not 
yet  been  asserted.  I  dwell  upon  it  because,  although 
it  has  been  asserted,  no  proposal  to  carry  it  out  has  yet 
been  made.  The  cry  has  indeed  gone  up  that  the  land  of 
Ireland  belongs  to  the  people  of  Ireland,  but  there  the 
recognition  of  the  principle  has  stopped.  To  say  that  the 
land  of  Ireland  belongs  to  the  people  of  Ireland,  and  then 
merely  to  ask  that  rents  shall  be  reduced,  or  that  tenant- 
right  be  extended,  or  that  the  State  shall  buy  the  land 
from  one  class  and  sell  it  to  another  class,  is  utterly 
illogical  and  absurd. 

Either  the*  land  of  Ireland  rightfully  belongs  to  the 
Irish  landlords,  or  it  rightfully  belongs  to  the  Irish  people ; 
there  can  be  no  middle  ground.  If  it  rightfully  belongs 
to  the  landlords,  then  is  the  whole  agitation  wrong,  and 
every  scheme  for  interfering  in  any  way  with  the  land¬ 
lords  is  condemned.  If  the  land  rightfully  belongs  to  the 
landlords,  then  it  is  nobody  else’s  business  what  they  do 
with  it,  or  what  rent  they  charge  for  it,  or  where  or  how 
they  spend  the  money  they  draw  from  it,  and  whoever 
does  not  want  to  live  upon  it  on  the  landlords’  terms  is  at 
perfect  liberty  to  starve  or  emigrate.  But  if,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  land  of  Ireland  rightfully  belongs  to  the  Irish 
people,  then  the  only  logical  demand  is,  not  that  the 
tenants  shall  be  made  joint  owners  with  the  landlords, 


LANDLORDS’  RIGHT  IS  LABOR’S  WRONG. 


39 


not  that  it  be  bought  from  a  smaller  class  and  sold  to  a 
larger  class,  but  that  it  be  resumed  by  the  whole  people. 
To  propose  to  pay  the  landlords  for  it  is  to  deny  the  right 
of  the  people  to  it.  The  real  fight  for  Irish  rights  must 
be  made  outside  of  Ireland;  and,  above  all  things,  the 
Irish  agitators  ought  to  take  a  logical  position,  based  upon 
a  broad,  clear  principle  which  can  be  everywhere  under¬ 
stood  and  appreciated.  To  ask  for  tenant-right  or  peasant 
proprietorship  is  not  to  take  such  a  position ;  to  concede 
that  the  landlords  ought  to  be  paid  is  utterly  to  abandon 
the  principle  that  the  land  belongs  rightfully  to  the  people. 

To  admit,  as  even  the  most  radical  of  the  Irish  agitators 
seem  to  admit,  that  the  landlords  should  be  paid  the  value 
of  their  lands,  is  to  deny  the  rights  of  the  people.  It  is 
an  admission  that  the  agitation  is  an  interference  with 
the  just  rights  of  property.  It  is  to  ignore  the  only  prin¬ 
ciple  on  which  the  agitation  can  be  justified,  and  on  which 
it  can  gather  strength  for  the  accomplishment  of  anything 
real  and  permanent.  To  admit  this  is  to  admit  that  the 
Irish  people  have  no  more  right  to  the  soil  of  Ireland  than 
any  outsider.  For,  any  outsider  can  go  to  Ireland  and 
buy  land,  if  he  will  give  its  market  value.  To  propose  to 
buy  out  the  landlords  is  to  propose  to  continue  the  present 
injustice  in  another  form.  They  would  get  in  interest  on 
the  debt  created  what  they  now  get  in  rent.  They  would 
still  have  a  lien  upon  Irish  labor. 

And  why  should  the  landlords  be  paid  ?  If  the  land  of 
Ireland  belongs  of  natural  right  to  the  Irish  people,  what 
valid  claim  for  payment  can  be  set  up  by  the  landlords  ? 
No  one  will  contend  that  the  land  is  theirs  of  natural 
right,  for  the  day  has  gone  by  when  men  could  be  told 
that  the  Creator  of  the  universe  intended  his  bounty  for 
the  exclusive  use  and  benefit  of  a  privileged  class  of  his 
creatures— that  he  intended  a  few  to  roll  in  luxury  while 
their  fellows  toiled  and  starved  for  them.  The  claim  of 


1 


40  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

the  landlords  to  the  land  rests  not  on  natural  right,  but 
merely  on  municipal  law— on  municipal  law  which  con¬ 
travenes  natural  right.  And,  whenever  the  sovereign 
power  changes  municipal  law  so  as  to  conform  to  natural 
right,  what  claim  can  they  assert  to  compensation  ?  Some 
of  them  bought  their  lands,  it  is  true  $  but  they  got  no 
better  title  than  the  seller  had  to  give.  And  what  are 
these  titles?  Titles  based  on  murder  and  robbery,  on 
blood  and  rapine— titles  which  rest  on  the  most  atrocious 
and  wholesale  crimes.  Created  by  force  and  maintained 
by  force,  they  have  not  behind  them  the  first  shadow  of 
right.  That  Henry  II.  and  James  I.  and  Cromwell  and 
the  Long  Parliament  had  the  power  to  give  and  grant 
Irish  lands  is  true ;  but  will  any  one  contend  they  had  the 
right  ?  Will  any  one  contend  that  in  all  the  past  genera¬ 
tions  there  has  existed  on  the  British  Isles  or  anywhere 
else  any  human  being,  or  any  number  of  human  beings, 
who  had  the  right  to  say  that  in  the  year  1881  the  great 
mass  of  Irishmen  should  be  compelled  to  pay — in  many 
cases  to  residents  of  England,  France,  or  the  United  States 
— for  the  privilege  of  living  in  their  native  country  and 
making  a  living  from  their  native  soil  ?  Even  if  it  be  said 
that  might  makes  right ;  even  if  it  be  contended  that  in 
the  twelfth,  or  seventeenth,  or  eighteenth  century  lived 
men  who,  having  the  power,  had  therefore  the  right,  to  give 
away  the  soil  of  Ireland,  it  cannot  be  contended  that  their 
right  went  further  than  their  power,  or  that  their  gifts  and 
grants  are  binding  on  the  men  of  the  present  generation. 
No  one  caji  urge  such  a  preposterous  doctrine.  And,  if 
might  makes  right,  then  the  moment  the  people  get  power 
to  take  the  land  the  rights  of  the  present  landholders 
utterly  cease,  and  any  proposal  to  compensate  them  is  a 
proposal  to  do  a  fresh  wrong. 

Should  it  be  urged  that,  no  matter  on  what  thev  origi- 
nally  rest,  the  lapse  of  time  has  given  to  the  legal  owners 


LANDLORDS’  RIGHT  IS  LABOR’S  WRONG. 


41 


of  Irisli  land  a  title  of  which  they  cannot  now  he  justly 
deprived  without  compensation,  it  is  sufficient  to  ask,  with 
Herbert  Spencer,  at  what  rate  per  annum  wrong  becomes 
right?  Even  the  shallow  pretense  that  the  acquiescence 
of  society  can  vest  in  a  few  the  exclusive  right  to  that 
element  on  which  and  from  which  Nature  has  ordained 
that  all  must  live,  cannot  be  urged  in  the  case  of  Ireland. 
For  the  Irish  people  have  never  acquiesced  in  their  spolia¬ 
tion,  unless  the  bound  and  gagged  victim  may  be  said  to 
acquiesce  in  the  robbery  and  maltreatment  which  he 
cannot  prevent.  Though  the  memory  of  their  ancient 
rights  in  the  land  of  their  country  may  have  been  utterly 
stamped  out  among  the  people  of  England,  and  have  been 
utterly  forgotten  among  their  kin  on  this  side  of  the  sea, 
it  has  long  survived  among  the  Irish.  If  the  Irish  people 
have  gone  hungry  and  cold  and  ignorant,  if  they  have 
been  evicted  from  lands  on  which  their  ancestors  had  lived 
from  time  immemorial,  if  they  have  been  forced  to  emi¬ 
grate  or  to  starve,  it  has  not  been  for  the  want  of  protest. 
They  have  protested  all  they  could ;  they  have  struggled 
all  they  could.  It  has  been  but  superior  force  that  has 
stifled  their  protests  and  made  their  struggles  vain.  In 
a  blind,  dumb  way,  they  are  protesting  now  and  strug¬ 
gling  now,  though  even  if  their  hands  were  free  they 
might  not  at  first  know  how  to  untie  the  knots  in  the  cords 
that  bind  them.  But  acquiesce  they  never  have. 

Yet,  even  supposing  they  had  aquiesced,  as  in  their 
ignorance  the  working-classes  of  'Such  countries  as  Eng¬ 
land  and  the  United  States  now  acquiesce,  in  the  iniquitous 
system  which  makes  the  common  birthright  of  all  the 
exclusive  property  of  some.  What  then?  Does  such 
acquiescence  turn  wrong  into  right?  If  the  sleeping 
traveler  wake  to  find  a  robber  With  his  hand  in  his  pocket, 
is  he  bound  to  buy  the  robber  off— bound  not  merely  to 
let  him  keep  what  he  has  previously  taken,  but  pay  him 


42 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


the  full  value  of  all  he  expected  the  sleep  of  his  victim  to 
permit  him  to  get?  If  the  stockholders  of  a  bank  find 
that  for  a  long  term  of  years  their  cashier  has  been  appro¬ 
priating  the  lion’s  share  of  the  profits,  are  they  to  be  told 
that  they  cannot  discharge  him  without  paying  him  for 
what  he  might  have  got,  had  his  peculations  not  been 
discovered  ? 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON  OF  CAPTAIN  KIDD. 

I  APOLOGIZE  to  the  Irish  landlords  and  to  all  other 
landlords  for  likening  them  to  thieves  and  robbers. 
I  trust  they  will  understand  that  I  do  not  consider  them 
as  personally  worse  than  other  men,  but  that  I  am  obliged 
to  use  such  illustrations  because  no  others  will  fit  the  case. 
I  am  concerned  not  with  individuals,  but  with  the  system. 
What  I  want  to  do  is,  to  point  out  a  distinction  that  in 
the  plea  for  the  vested  rights  of  landowners  is  ignored— 
a  distinction  which  arises  from  the  essential  difference 
between  land  and  things  that  are  the  produce  of  human 
labor,  and  which  is  obscured  by  our  habit  of  classing 
them  all  together  as  property. 

The  galleys  that  carried  Caesar  to  Britain,  the  accoutre¬ 
ments  of  his  legionaries,  the  baggage  that  they  carried, 
the  arms  that  they  bore,  the  buildings  that  they  erected ; 
the  scythed  chariots  of  the  ancient  Britons,  the  horses 
that  drew  them,  their  wicker  boats  and  wattled  houses— 
where  are  they  now  ?  But  the  land  for  which  Roman  and 
Briton  fought,  there  it  is  still.  That  British  soil  is  yet 
as  fresh  and  as  new  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Romans. 
Generation  after  generation  has  lived  on  it  since,  and 
generation  after  generation  will  live  on  it  yet.  Now,  here 
is  a  very  great  difference.  The  right  to  possess  and  to 
pass  on  the  ownership  of  things  that  in  their  nature  decay 
and  soon  cease  to  be  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the 


44 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


right  to  possess  and  to  pass  on  the  ownership  of  that 
which  does  not  decay,  but  from  which  each  successive 
generation  must  live. 

To  show  how  this  difference  between  land  and  such 
other  species  of  property  as  are  properly  styled  wealth 
bears  upon  the  argument  for  the  vested  rights  of  land¬ 
holders,  let  me  illustrate  again. 

Captain  Kidd  was  a  pirate.  He  made  a  business  of 
sailing  the  seas,  capturing  merchantmen,  making  their 
crews  walk  the  plank,  and  appropriating  their  cargoes.  In 
this  way  he  accumulated  much  wealth,  which  he  is  thought 
to  have  buried.  But  let  us  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the 
illustration,  that  he  did  not  bury  his  wealth,  but  left  it 
to  his  legal  heirs,  and  they  to  their  heirs  and  so  on,  until 
at  the  present  day  this  wealth  or  a  part  of  it  has  come 
to  a  great-great-grandson  of  Captain  Kidd.  Now,  let  us 
suppose  that  some  one — say  a  great-great-grandson  of  one 
of  the  shipmasters  whom  Captain  Kidd  plundered,  makes 
complaint,  and  says  :  “  This  man’s  great- great-grandfather 
plundered  my  great-great-grandfather  of  certain  things 
or  certain  sums,  which  have  been  transmitted  to  him, 
whereas  but  for*  this  wrongful  act  they  would  have  been 
transmitted  to  me ;  therefore,  I  demand  that  he  be  made 
to  restore  them.”  What  would  society  answer? 

Society,  speaking  by  its  proper  tribunals,  and  in  accor¬ 
dance  with  principles  recognized  among  all  civilized  na¬ 
tions,  would  say:  “We  cannot  entertain  such  a  demand. 
It  may  be  true  that  Mr.  Kidd’s  great-great-grandfather 
robbed  your  great-great-grandfather,  and  that  as  the  result 
of  this  wrong  he  has  got  things  that  otherwise  might  have 
come  to  you.  But  we  cannot  inquire  into  occurrences 
that  happened  so  long  ago.  Each  generation  has  enough 
to  do  to  attend  to  its  own  affairs.  If  we  go  to  righting 
the  wrongs  and  reopening  the  controversies  of  our  great- 
great-grandfathers,  there  will  be  endless  disputes  and 


THE  GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON  OF  CAPTAIN  KIDD.  45 


pretexts  for  dispute.  What  you  say  may  be  true,  but 
somewhere  we  must  draw  the  line,  and  have  an  end  to 
strife.  Though  this  man’s  great-great-grandfatlier  may 
have  robbed  your  great-great-grandfather,  he  has  not 
robbed  you .  He  came  into  possession  of  these  things 
peacefully,  and  has  held  them  peacefully,  and  we  must 
take  this  peaceful  possession,  when  it  has  been  continued 
for  a  certain  time,  as  absolute  evidence  of  just  title  5  for, 
were  we  not  to  do  that,  there  would  be  no  end  to  dispute 
and  no  secure  possession  of  anything.” 

Now,  it  is  this  common-sense  principle  that  is  expressed 
in  the  statute  of  limitations— in  the  doctrine  of  vested 
rights.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  held— and  as  to  most 
things  held  justly— that  peaceable  possession  for  a  certain 
time  cures  all  defects  of  title. 

But  let  us  pursue  the  illustration  a  little  further : 

Let  us  suppose  that  Captain  Kidd,  having  established 
a  large  and  profitable  piratical  business,  left  it  to  his  son, 
and  he  to  his  son,  and  so  on,  until  the  great-great-grand¬ 
son,  who  now  pursues  it,  has  come  to  consider  it  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world  that  his  ships  should  roam  the 
sea,  capturing  peaceful  merchantmen,  making  their  crews 
walk  the  plank,  and  bringing  home  to  him  much  plunder, 
whereby  he  is  enabled,  though  he  does  no  work  at  all,  to 
live  in  very  great  luxury,  and  look  down  with  contempt 
upon  people  who  have  to  work.  But  at  last,  let  us  sup¬ 
pose,  the  merchants  get  tired  of  having  their  ships  sunk 
and  their  goods  taken,  and  sailors  get  tired  of  trembling 
for  their  lives  every  time  a  sail  lifts  above  the  horizon, 
and  they  demand  of  society  that  piracy  be  stopped. 

Now,  what  should  society  say  if  Mr.  Kidd  got  indignant, 
appealed  to  the  doctrine  of  vested  rights,  and  asserted 
that  society  was  bound  to  prevent  any  interference  with 
the  business  that  he  had  inherited,  and  that,  if  it  wanted 
him  to  stop,  it  must  buy  him  out,  paying  him  all  that  his 


46 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


business  was  worth— that  is  to  say,  at  least  as  much  as  he 
could  make  in  twenty  years’  successful  pirating,  so  that 
if  he  stopped  pirating  he  could  still  continue  to  live  in 
luxury  off  of  the  profits  of  the  merchants  and  the  earnings 
of  the  sailors  ? 

What  ought  society  to  say  to  such  a  claim  as  this? 
There  will  be  but  one  answer.  We  will  all  say  that  society 
should  tell  Mr.  Kidd  that  his  was  a  business  to  which  the 
statute  of  limitations  and  the  doctrine  of  vested  rights 
did  not  apply;  that  because  his  father,  and  his  grand¬ 
father,  and  his  great-  and  great-great-grandfather  pursued 
the  business  of  capturing  ships  and  making  their  crews 
walk  the  plank,  was  no  reason  why  he  should  be  permitted 
to  pursue  it.  Society,  we  will  all  agree,  ought  to  say  he 
would  have  to  stop  piracy  and  stop  it  at  once,  and  that 
without  getting  a  cent  for  stopping. 

Or  supposing  it  had  happened  that  Mr.  Kidd  had  sold 
out  his  piratical  business  to  Smith,  Jones,  or  Robinson, 
we  will  all  agree  that  society  ought  to  say  that  their  pur¬ 
chase  of  the  business  gave  them  no  greater  right  than 
Mr.  Kidd  had. 

We  will  all  agree  that  that  is  what  society  ought  to  say. 
Observe,  I  do  not  ask  what  society  would  say. 

For,  ridiculous  and  preposterous  as  it  may  appear,  I 
am  satisfied  that,  under  the  circumstances  I  have  supposed, 
society  would  not  for  a  long  time  say  what  we  have 
agreed  it  ought  to  say.  Not  only  would  all  the  Kidds 
loudly  claim  that  to  make  them  give  up  their  business 
without  full  recompense  would  be  a  wicked  interference 
with  vested  rights,  but  the  justice  of  this  claim  would  at 
first  be  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course  by  all  or  nearly 
all  the  influential  classes— the  great  lawyers,  the  able 
journalists,  the  writers  for  the  magazines,  the  eloquent 
clergymen,  and  the  principal  professors  in  the  principal 
universities.  Nay,  even  the  merchants  and  sailors,  when 


THE  GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON  OF  CAPTAIN  KIDD.  47 


they  first  began  to  complain,  would  be  so  tyrannized  and 
browbeaten  by  this  public  opinion  that  they  would  hardly 
think  of  more  than  of  buying  out  the  Kidds,  and,  wher¬ 
ever  here  and  there  any  one  dared  to  raise  his  voice  in 
favor  of  stopping  piracy  at  once  and  without  compensa¬ 
tion,  he  would  only  do  so  under  penalty  of  being  stigma¬ 
tized  as  a  reckless  disturber  and  wicked  foe  of  social 
order. 

If  any  one  denies  this,  if  any  one  says  mankind  are  not 
such  fools,  then  I  appeal  to  universal  history  to  bear  me 
witness.  I  appeal  to  the  facts  of  to-day. 

Show  me  a  wrong,  no  matter  how  monstrous,  that  ever 
yet,  among  any  people,  became  ingrafted  in  the  social 
system,  and  I  will  prove  to  you  the  truth  of  what  I  say. 

The  majority  of  men  do  not  think ;  the  majority  of  men 
have  to  expend  so  much  energy  in  the  struggle  to  make 
a  living  that  they  do  not  have  time  to  think.  The  majority 
of  men  accept,  as  a  matter  of  course,  whatever  is.  This 
is  what  makes  the  task  of  the  social  reformer  so  difficult, 
his  path  so  hard.  This  is  what  brings  upon  those  who 
first  raise  their  voices  in  behalf  of  a  great  truth  the  sneers 
of  the  powerful  and  the  curs  s  of  the  rabble,  ostracism 
and  martyrdom,  the  robe  of  derision  and  the  crown  of 
thorns. 

Am  I  not  right  ?  Have  there  not  been  states  of  society 
in  which  piracy  has  been  considered  the  most  respectable 
and  honorable  of  pursuits  ?  Did  the  Roman  populace  see 
anything  more  reprehensible  in  a  gladiatorial  show  than 
we  do  in  a  horse-race  ?  Does  public  opinion  in  Dahomey 
see  anything  reprehensible  in  the  custom  of  sacrificing  a 
thousand  or  two  human  beings  by  way  of  signalizing 
grand  occasions  ?  Are  there  not  states  of  society  in  which, 
in  spite  of  the  natural  proportions  of  the  sexes,  polygamy 
is  considered  a  matter  of  course  ?  Are  there  not  states  of 
society  in  which  it  would  be  considered  the  most  ridiculous 


48 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


thing  in  the  world  to  say  that  a  man’s  son  was  more  closely 
related  to  him  than  his  nephew?  Are  there  not  states 
of  society  in  which  it  would  he  considered  disreputable 
for  a  man  to  carry  a  burden  while  a  woman  who  could 
stagger  under  it  was  around? — states  of  society  in  which 
the  husband  who  did  not  occasionally  beat  his  wife  would 
be  deemed  by  both  sexes  a  weak-minded,  low-spirited 
fellow  ?  What  would  Chinese  fashionable  society  consider 
more  outrageous  than  to  be  told  that  mothers  should  not 
be  permitted  to  squeeze  their  daughters’  feet,  or  Flathead 
women  than  being  restrained  from  tying  a  board  on  their 
infants’  skulls  ?  How  long  has  it  been  since  the  monstrous 
doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings  was  taught  through 
all  Christendom  ? 

What  is  the  slave-trade  but  piracy  of  the  worst  kind  ? 
Yet  it  is  not  long  since  the  slave-trade  was  looked  upon 
as  a  perfectly  respectable  business,  affording  as  legitimate 
an  opening  for  the  investment  of  capital  and  the  display 
of  enterprise  as  any  other.  The  proposition  to  prohibit 
it  was  first  looked  upon  as  ridiculous,  then  as  fanatical, 
then  as  wicked.  It  was  only  slowly  and  by  hard  fighting 
that  the  truth  in  regard  to  it  gained  ground.  Does  not 
our  very  Constitution  bear  witness  to  what  I  say?  Does 
not  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation,  adopted  twelve 
years  after  the  enunciation  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde¬ 
pendence,  declare  that  for  twenty  years  the  slave-trade 
shall  not  be  prohibited  nor  restricted?  Such  dominion 
had  the  idea  of  vested  interests  over  the  minds  of  those 
who  had  already  proclaimed  the  inalienable  right  of  man 
to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ! 

Is  it  not  but  yesterday  that  in  the  freest  and  greatest 
republic  on  earth,  among  the  people  who  boast  that  they 
lead  the  very  van  of  civilization,  this  doctrine  of  vested 
rights  was  deemed  a  sufficient  justification  for  all  the 
cruel  wrongs  of  human  slavery  ?  Is  it  not  but  yesterday 


THE  GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON  OF  CAPTAIN  KIDD.  49 


when  whoever  dared  to  say  that  the  rights  of  property  did 
not  jnstly  attach  to  human  beings ;  when  whoever  dared 
to  deny  that  human  beings  could  be  rightfully  bought 
and  sold  like  cattle— the  husband  torn  from  the  wife  and 
the  child  from  the  mother;  when  whoever  denied  the 
right  of  whoever  had  paid  his  money  for  him  to  work  or 
whip  his  own  nigger  was  looked  upon  as  a  wicked  assailant 
of  the  rights  of  property  ?  Is  it  not  but  yesterday  when 
in  the  South  whoever  whispered  such  a  thought  took  his 
life  in  his  hands;  when  in  the  North  the  abolitionist 
was  held  by  the  churches  as  worse  than  an  infidel,  was 
denounced  by  the  politicians  and  rotten-egged  by  the  mob  ? 
I  was  born  in  a  Northern  State,  I  have  never  lived  in  the 
South,  I  am  not  yet  gray ;  but  I  well  remember,  as  every 
American  of  middle  age  must  remember,  how  over  and 
over  again  I  have  heard  all  questionings  of  slavery  silenced 
by  the  declaration  that  the  negroes  were  the  property  of 
their  masters,  and  that  to  take  away  a  man’s  slave  without 
payment  was  as  much  a  crime  as  to  take  away  his  horse 
without  paymen  t.  And  whoever  does  not  remember  that 
far  back,  let  him  look  over  American  literature  previous 
to  the  war,  and  say  whether,  if  the  business  of  piracy  had 
been  a  flourishing  business,  it  would  have  lacked  defenders  ? 
Let  him  say  whether  any  proposal  to  stop  the  business  of 
piracy  without  compensating  the  pirates  would  not  have 
been  denounced  at  first  as  a  proposal  to  set  aside  vested 
rights  ? 

But  I  am  appealing  to  other  states  of  society  and  to 
times  that  are  past  merely  to  get  my  readers,  if  I  can,  out 
of  their  accustomed  ruts  of  thought.  The  proof  of  what 
I  assert  about  the  Kidds  and  their’  business  is  in  the 
thought  and  speech  of  to-day. 

Here  is  a  system  which-  robs  the  producers  of  wealth  as 
remorselessly  and  far  more  regularly  and  systematically 
than  the  pirate  robs  the  merchantman.  Here  is  a  system 


50 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


that  steadily  condemns  thousands  to  far  more  lingering 
and  horrible  deaths  than  that  of  walking  the  plank— to 
death  of  the  mind  and  death  of  the  soul,  as  well  as  death  of 
the  body.  These  things  are  undisputed.  No  one  denies 
that  Irish  pauperism  and  famine  are  the  direct  results  of 
this  land  system,  and  no  one  who  will  examine  the  subject 
will  deny  that  the  chronic  pauperism  and  chronic  famine 
which  everywhere  mark  our  civilization  are  the  results 
of  this  system.  Yet  we  are  told— nay,  it  seems  to  be 
taken  for  granted— that  this  system  cannot  be  abolished 
without  buying  off  those  who  profit  by  it.  Was  there 
ever  more  degrading  abasement  of  the  human  mind  before 
a  fetish  ?  Can  we  wonder,  as  we  see  it,  at  any  perversion 
of  ideas  ? 

Consider :  is  not  the  parallel  I  have  drawn  a  true  one  ? 
Is  it  not  just  as  much  a  perversion  of  ideas  to  apply  the 
doctrine  of  vested  rights  to  property  in  land,  when  these 
are  its  admitted  fruits,  as  it  was  to  apply  it  to  property 
in  human  flesh  and  blood ;  as  it  would  be  to  apply  it  to 
the  business  of  piracy?  In  what  does  the  claim  of  the 
Irish  landholders  differ  from  that  of  the  hereditary  pirate 
or  the  man  who  has  bought  out  a  piratical  business? 
u  Because  I  have  inherited  or  purchased  the  business  of 
robbing  merchantmen,”  says  the  pirate,  u  therefore  respect 
for  the  rights  of  property  mu  t  compel  you  to  let  me  go 
on  robbing  ships  and  making  sailors  walk  the  plank  until 
you  buy  me  out.”  11  Because  we  have  inherited  or  pur¬ 
chased  the  privilege  of  appropriating  to  ourselves  the 
lion’s  share  of  the  produce  of  labor,”  says  the  landlord, 
“  therefore  you  must  continue  to  let  us  do  it,  even  though 
poor  wretches  shiver  with  cold  and  faint  with  hunger, 
even  though,  in  their  poverty  and  misery,  they  are  reduced 
to  wallow  with  the  pigs.”  What  is  the  difference? 

This  is  the  point  I  want  to  make  clearly  and  distinctly, 
for  it  shows  a  distinction  that  in  current  thought  is  over- 


THE  GREAT-GREAT-GRANDSON  OF  CAPTAIN  KIDD.  51 


looked.  Property  in  land,  like  property  in  slaves,  is 
essentially  different  from  property  in  things  that  are  the 
result  of  labor.  Rob  a  man  or  a  people  of  money,  or 
goods,  or  cattle,  and  the  robbery  is  finished  there  and 
then.  The  lapse  of  time  does  not,  indeed,  change  wrong 
into  right,  but  it  obliterates  the  effects  of  the  deed.  That 
is  done  ;  it  is  over;  and,  unless  it  be  very  soon  righted,  it 
glides  away  into  the  past,  with  the  men  who  were  parties 
to  it,  so  swiftly  that  nothing  save  omniscience  can  trace 
its  effects ;  and  in  attempting  to  right  it  we  would  be  in 
danger  of  doing  fresh  wrong.  The  past  is  forever  beyond 
us.  We  can  neither  punish  nor  recompense  the  dead. 
But  rob  a  people  of  the  land  on  which  they  must  live, 
and  the  robbery  is  continuous.  It  is  a  fresh  robbery  of 
every  succeeding  generation— a  new  robbery  every  year 
and  every  day ;  it  is  like  the  robbery  which  condemns  to 
slavery  the  children  of  the  slave.  To  apply  to  it  the 
statute  of  limitations,  to  acknowledge  for  it  the  title  of 
prescription,  is  not  to  condone  the  past ;  it  is  to  legalize 
robbery  in  the  present,  to  justify  it  in  the  future.  The 
indictment  which  really  lies  against  the  Irish  landlords  is 
not  that  their  ancestors,  or  the  ancestors  of  their  grantors, 
robbed  the  ancestors  of  the  Irish  people.  That  makes  no 
difference.  “Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead.”  The  indict¬ 
ment  that  truly  lies  is  that  here,  now,  in  the  year  1881, 
they  rob  the  Irish  people.  And  shall  we  be  told  that 
there  can  be  a  vested  right  to  continue  such  robbery  ? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  ONLY  WAY,  THE  EASY  WAY. 

I  HAVE  dwelt  so  long  upon  this  question  of  compen¬ 
sating  landowners,  not  merely  because  it  is  of  great 
practical  importance,  but  because  its  discussion  brings 
clearly  into  view  the  principles  upon  which  the  land 
question,  in  any  country,  can  alone  be  justly  and  finally 
settled.  In  the  light  of  these  principles  we  see  that  land- 
owners  have  no  rightful  claim  either  to  the  land  or  to 
compensation  for  its  resumption  by  the  people,  and, 
further  than  that,  we  see  that  no  such  rightful  claim  can 
ever  be  created.  It  would  be  wrong  to  pay  the  present 
landowners  for  u  their  ”  land  at  the  expense  of  the  people ; 
it  would  likewise  be  wrong  to  sell  it  again  to  smaller 
holders.  It  would  be  wrong  to  abolish  the  payment  of 
rent,  and  to  give  the  land  to  its  present  cultivators.  In 
the  very  nature  of  things,  land  cannot  rightfully  be  made 
individual  property.  This  principle  is  absolute.  The 
title  of  a  peasant  proprietor  deserves  no  more  respect 
than  the  title  of  a  great  territorial  noble.  No  sovereign 
political  power,  no  compact  or  agreement,  even  though 
consented  to  by  the  whole  population  of  the  globe,  can 
give  to  an  individual  a  valid  title  to  the  exclusive  owner¬ 
ship  of  a  square  inch  of  soil.  The  earth  is  an  entailed 
estate— entailed  upon  all  the  generations  of  the  children 
of  men,  by  a  deed  written  in  the  constitution  of  Nature, 
a  deed  that  no  human  proceedings  can  bar,  and  no  pre- 


THE  ONLY  WAY,  THE  EASY  WAY. 


53 


scription  determine.  Each  succeeding  generation  has  but 
a  tenancy  for  life.  Admitting  that  any  set  of  men  may 
barter  away  their  own  natural  rights  (and  this  logically 
involves  an  admission  of  the  right  of  suicide),  they  can 
no  more  barter  away  the  rights  of  their  successors  than 
they  can  barter  away  the  rights  of  the  inhabitants  of 
other  worlds. 

What  should  be  aimed  at  in  the  settlement  of  the  Irish 
Land  Question  is  thus  very  clear.  The  u three  F’s”  are, 
what  they  have  already  been  called,  three  frauds ;  and  the 
proposition  to  create  peasant  proprietorship  is  no  better. 
It  will  not  do  merely  to  carve  out  of  the  estates  of  the 
landlords  minor  estates  for  the  tenants;  it  will  not  do 
merely  to  substitute  a  larger  for  a  smaller  class  of  pro¬ 
prietors  ;  it  will  not  do  to  confine  the  settlement  to  agri¬ 
cultural  land,  leaving  to  its  present  possessors  the  land  of 
the  towns  and  villages.  None  of  these  lame  and  impotent 
conclusions  will  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice  or  cure  the 
bitter  evils  now  so  apparent.  The  only  true  and  just 
solution  of  the  problem,  the  only  end  worth  aiming  at,  is 
to  make  all  the  land  the  common  property  of  all  the 
people. 

This  principle  conceded,  the  question  of  method  arises. 
How  shall  this  be  done  ?  Nothing  is  easier.  It  is  merely 
necessary  to  divert  the  rent  which  now  flows  into  the 
pockets  of  the  landlords  into  the  common  treasury  of  the 
whole  people.  It  is  not  possible  so  to  divide  up  the  land 
of  Ireland  as  to  give  each  family,  still  less  each  individual, 
an  equal  share.  And,  even  if  that  were  possible,  it  would 
not  be  possible  to  maintain  equality,  for  old  people  are 
constantly  dying  and  new  people  constantly  being  born, 
while  the  relative  value  of  land  is  constantly  changing. 
But  it  is  possible  to  divide  the  rent  equally,  or,  what 
amounts  to  the  same  thing,  to  apply  it  to  purposes  of 
common  benefit.  This  is  the  way,  and  this  is  the  only 


54 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


way,  in  which  absolute  justice  can  be  done.  This  is  the 
way,  and  this  is  the  only  way,  in  which  the  equal  right  of 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  can  be  acknowledged  and 
secured.  As  Herbert  Spencer  says  of  it :  * 

Such  a  doctrine  is  consistent  with  the  highest  state  of  civilization ; 
may  he  carried  out  without  involving  a  community  of  goods,  and 
need  cause  no  very  serious  revolution  in  existing  arrangements.  The 
change  required  would  simply  be  a  change  of  landlords.  Separate 
ownership  would  merge  into  the  joint-stock  ownership  of  the  public. 
Instead  of  being  in  the  possession  of  individuals,  the  country  would 
be  held  by  the  great  corporate  body— society.  Instead  of  leasing  his 
acres  from  an  isolated  proprietor,  the  farmer  would  lease  them  from 
the  nation.  Instead  of  paying  his  rent  to  the  agent  of  Sir  John  or 
his  Grace,  he  would  pay  it  to  an  agent  or  deputy  agent  of  the  com¬ 
munity.  Stewards  would  be  public  officials  instead  of  private  ones, 
and  tenancy  the  only  land  tenure.  A  state  of  things  so  ordered 
would  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  moral  law.  Under  it,  all  men 
would  be  equally  landlords ;  all  men  would  be  alike  free  to  become 
tenants.  .  .  .  Clearly,  therefore,  on  such  a  system,  the  earth  might 
be  inclosed,  occupied,  and  cultivated,  in  entire  subordination  to  the 
law  of  equal  freedom. 

Now,  it  is  a  very  easy  thing  thus  to  sweep  away  all 
private  ownership  of  land,  and  convert  all  occupiers  into 
tenants  of  the  State,  by  appropriating  rent.  No  compli¬ 
cated  laws  or  cumbersome  machinery  is  necessary.  It 
is  necessary  only  to  tax  land  up  to  its  full  value.  Do 
that,  and  without  any  talk  about  dispossessing  landlords, 
without  any  use  of  the  ugly  word  “  confiscation,”  without 
any  infringement  of  the  just  rights  of  property,  the  land 
would  become  virtually  the  people’s,  while  the  landlords 
would  be  left  the  absolute  and  unqualified  possessors  of 
—their  deeds  of  title  and  conveyance !  They  could  con¬ 
tinue  to  call  themselves  landlords,  if  they  wished  to,  just 
as  that  poor  old  Bourbon,  the  Comte  de  Chambord,  con¬ 
tinues  to  call  himself  King  of  France ;  but,  as  what,  under 


*  “  Social  Statics,”  Chapter  IX.,  sec.  8. 


THE  ONLY  WAY,  THE  EASY  WAY.  55 

this  system,  was  paid  by  the  tenant  would  be  taken  by 
the  State,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  middlemen  would  not 
long  survive,  and  that  very  soon  the  occupiers  of  land 
would  come  to  be  nominally  the  owners,  though,  in  reality, 
they  would  be  the  tenants  of  the  whole  people. 

How  beautifully  this  simple  method  would  satisfy 
every  economic  requirement  $  how,  freeing  labor  and 
capital  from  the  fetters  that  now  oppress  them  (for  all 
other  taxes  could  be  easily  remitted),  it  would  enormously 
increase  the  production  of  wealth ;  how  it  would  make 
distribution  conform  to  the  law  of  justice,  dry  up  the 
springs  of  want  and  misery,  elevate  society  from  its  lowest 
stratum,  and  give  all  their  fair  share  in  the  blessings  of 
advancing  civilization,  can  perhaps  be  fully  shown  only 
by  such  a  detailed  examination  of  the  whole  social  problem 
as  I  have  made  in  a  book  *  which  I  hope  will  be  read  by 
all  the  readers  of  this,  since  in  it  I  go  over  much  ground 
and  treat  many  subjects  which  cannot  be  even  touched 
upon  here.  Nevertheless,  any  one  can  see  that  to  tax 
land  up  to  its  full  rental  value  would  amount  to  precisely 
the  same  thing  as  formally  to  take  possession  of  it,  and 
then  let  it  out  to  the  highest  bidders. 


*  “  Progress  and  Poverty.” 


CHAPTER  IX. 


PRINCIPLE  THE  BEST  POLICY. 

WE  have  now  seen  the  point  that  should  be  aimed 
at,  and  the  method  by  which  it  is  to  be  reached. 
There  is  another  branch  of  the  subject  which  practical 
men  must  consider :  the  political  forces  that  may  be  mar¬ 
shaled  ;  the  political  resistance  that  must  be  overcome. 
It  is  one  thing  to  work  out  such  a  problem  in  the  closet— 
to  demonstrate  its  proper  solution  to  the  satisfaction  of  a 
few  intelligent  readers.  It  is  another  thing  to  solve  it 
in  the  field  of  action,  where  ignorance,  prejudice,  and 
powerful  interests  must  be  met. 

It  cannot  be  that  the  really  earnest  men  in  the  Irish 
movement  are  satisfied  with  any  program  yet  put  forth. 
But  they  are  doubtless  influenced  by  the  fear  that  the 
avowal  of  radical  views  and  aims  would  not  merely 
intensify  present  opposition,  but  frighten  away  from 
their  cause  large  numbers  and  important  influences  now 
with  it.  To  say  nothing  of  English  conservatism,  there 
is  in  Ireland  a  large  class  now  supporting  the  movement 
who  are  morbidly  afraid  of  anything  which  savors  of 
u  communism  ”  or  “  socialism,”  while  in  the  United  States, 
whence  much  moral  support  and  pecuniary  aid  have  been 
derived,  it  is  certain  that  many  of  those  who  are  now 
loudest  in  their  expressions  of  sympathy  would  slink  away 
from  a  movement  which  avowed  the  intention  of  abolish¬ 
ing  private  property  in  land.  A  resolution  expressive  of 


PRINCIPLE  THE  BEST  POLICY. 


57 


sympathy  with  the  Irish  people  in  their  u  struggle  for  the 
repeal  of  oppressive  land  laws”  was,  by  a  unanimous 
vote  of  the  National  House  of  Representatives,  flung  full 
in  the  face  of  the  British  lion.  How  many  votes  would 
that  resolution  have  got  had  it  involved  a  declaration  of 
hostility  to  the  institution  of  individual  property  in  land  ? 

I  understand  all  this.  Nevertheless,  I  am  convinced 
that  the  Irish  land  movement  would  gain,  not  lose,  were 
its  earnest  leaders,  disdaining  timid  counsels,  boldly  to 
avow  the  principle  that  the  land  of  Ireland  belongs  of 
right  to  the  whole  people  of  Ireland,  and,  without  bothering 
about  compensation  to  the  landholders,  to  propose  its 
resumption  by  the  people  in  the  simple  way  I  have  sug¬ 
gested.  That,  in  doing  this,  they  w^ould  lose  strength 
and  increase  antagonism  in  some  directions  is  true,  but 
they  would  in  other  directions  gain  strength  and  allay 
antagonisms.  And,  while  the  loss  would  constantly  tend 
to  diminish,  the  gain  would  constantly  tend  to  increase. 
They  would,  to  use  the  phrase  of  Emerson,  have  u  hitched 
their  wagon  to  a  star.” 

I  admit,  as  will  be  urged  by  those  who  would  hold  back 
from  such  an  avowal  as  I  propose,  that  political  progress 
must  be  by  short  steps  rather  than  by  great  leaps ;  that 
those  who'  would  have  the  people  follow  them  readily, 
and  especially  those  who  would  enjoy  a  present  popularity 
and  preferment,  must  not  go  too  far  in  advance ;  and  that 
to  demand  a  little  at  first  is  often  the  surest  way  to  obtain 
much  at  last. 

So  far  as  personal  consideration  is  concerned,  it  is  only 
to  earnest  men  capable  of  feeling  the  inspiration  of  a 
great  principle  that  I  care  to  talk,  or  that  I  can  hope  to 
convince.  To  them  I  wish  to  point  out  that  caution  is 
not  wisdom  when  it  involves  the  ignoring  of  a  great 
principle  ;  that  it  is  not  every  step  that  involves  progres¬ 
sion,  but  only  such  steps  as  are  in  the  right  line  and 


58 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


make  easier  the  next ;  that  there  are  strong  forces  that 
wait  but  the  raising  of  the  true  standard  to  rally  on  its 
side. 

Let  the  time-servers,  the  demagogues,  the  compromisers, 
to  whom  nothing  is  right  and  nothing  is  wrong,  but  who 
are  always  seeking  to  find  some  half-way  house  between 
right  and  wrong— let  them  all  go  their  ways.  Any  cause 
which  can  lay  hold  of  a  great  truth  is  the  stronger  with¬ 
out  them.  If  the  earnest  men  among  the  Irish  leaders 
abandon  their  present  half-hearted,  illogical  position,  and 
take  their  stand  frankly  and  firmly  upon  the  principle 
that  the  youngest  child  of  the  poorest  peasant  has  as 
good  a  right  to  tread  the  soil  and  breathe  the  air  of 
Ireland  as  the  eldest  son  of  the  proudest  duke,  they  will 
have  put  their  fight  on  the  right  line.  Present  defeat  will 
but  pave  the  way  for  future  victory,  and  each  step  won 
makes  easier  the  next.  Their  position  will  be  not  only 
logically  defensible,  but  will  prove  the  stronger  the  more 
it  is  discussed;  for  private  property  in  land— which 
never  arises  from  the  natural  perceptions  of  men,  but 
springs  historically  from  usurpation  and  robbery  — is 
something  so  utterly  absurd,  so  outrageously  unjust,  so 
clearly  a  waste  of  productive  forces  and  a  barrier  to  the 
most  profitable  use  of  natural  opportunities,  so  thoroughly 
opposed  to  all  sound  maxims  of  public  policy,  so  glaringly 
in  the  way  of  further  progress,  that  fit  is  only  tolerated 
because  the  majority  of  men  never  think  about  it  or  hear 
it  questioned.  Once  fairly  arraign  it,  and  it  must  be 
condemned;  once  call  upon  its  advocates  to  exhibit  its 
claims,  and  their  cause  is  lost  in  advance.  There  is  to-day 
no  political  economist  of  standing  who  dare  hazard  his 
reputation  by  defending  it  on  economic  grounds ;  there  is 
to-day  no  thinker  of  eminence  who  either  does  not,  like 
Herbert  Spencer,  openly  declare  the  injustice  of  private 
property  in  land,  or  tacitly  make  the  same  admission. 


PRINCIPLE  THE  BEST  POLICY. 


59 


Once  force  the  discussion  on  this  line,  and  the  Irish 
reformers  will  compel  to  their  side  the  most  active  and 
powerful  of  the  men  who  mold  thought. 

And  they  will  not  merely  close  up  their  own  ranks, 
now  in  danger  of  being  broken ;  they  will  “  carry  the 
war  into  Africa/’  and  make  possible  the  most  powerful  of 
political  combinations. 

It  is  already  beginning  to  be  perceived  that  the  Irish 
movement,  so  far  as  it  has  yet  gone,  is  merely  in  the 
interest  of  a  class;  that,  so  far  as  it  has  yet  voiced  any 
demand,  it  promises  nothing  to  the  laboring  and  artisan 
classes.  Its  opponents  already  see  this  opportunity  for 
division,  which,  even  without  their  efforts,  must  soon 
show  itself,  and  which,  now  that  the  first  impulse  of  the 
movement  is  over,  will  the  more  readily  develop.  To 
close  up  its  ranks,  and  hold  them  firm,  so  that,  even 
though  they  be  forced  to  bend,  they  will  not  break  and 
scatter,  it  must  cease  to  be  a  movement  looking  merely 
to  the  benefit  of  the  tenant-farmer,  and  become  a  move¬ 
ment  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  laboring-class. 

And  the  moment  this  is  done  the  Irish  land  agitation 
assumes  a  new  and  a  grander  phase.  It  ceases  to  be  an 
Irish  movement ;  it  becomes  but  the  van  of  a  world- wide 
struggle.  Count  the  loss  and  the  gain. 

t 


CHAPTER  X. 


APPEALS  TO  ANIMOSITY. 

THE  Land  League  movement,  as  an  Irish  movement, 
has  in  its  favor  the  strength  of  Irish  national  feeling. 
In  assuming  the  radical  ground  I  urge,  it  would  lose  some 
of  this ;  for  there  are  doubtless  a  considerable  number  of 
Irishmen  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  who  would  shrink 
at  first  from  the  proposal  to  abolish  private  property  in 
land.  But  all  that  is  worth  having  would  soon  come  back 
to  it.  And  its  strength  would  be  more  compact  and  in¬ 
tense-animated  by  a  more  definite  purpose  and  a  more 
profound  conviction. 

But  in  ceasing  to  be  a  movement  having  relation  simply 
to  Ireland— in  proclaiming  a  truth  and  proposing  a  remedy 
which  apply  as  well  to  every  other  country— it  would 
allay  opposition,  which,  as  a  mere  local  movement,  it 
arouses,  and  bring  to  its  support  powerful  forces. 

The  powerful  landed  interest  of  England  is  against  the 
movement  anyhow.  The  natural  allies  of  the  Irish  agita¬ 
tors  are  the  English  working-classes— not  merely  the 
Irishmen  and  sons  of  Irishmen  who,  in  the  larger  English 
cities,  are  numerous  enough  to  make  some  show  and  exert 
some  voting  power,  without  being  numerous  enough  to 
effect  any  important  result— but  the  great  laboring  masses 
of  Great  Britain.  So  long  as  merely  Irish  measures  are 
proposed,  they  cannot  gain  the  hearty  support  even  of 
the  English  radicals;  so  long  as  race  prejudices  and 


* 


APPEALS  TO  ANIMOSITY. 


61 


hatreds  are  appealed  to,  counter-prejudices  and  -hatreds 
must  be  aroused. 

It  is  the  very  madness  of  folly,  it  is  one  of  those  political 
blunders  worse  than  crimes,  to  permit  in  this  land  agita¬ 
tion  that  indiscriminating  denunciation  of  England  and 
everything  English  which  is  so  common  at  Land  League 
meetings  and  in  the  newspapers  which  voice  Irish  senti¬ 
ment.  The  men  who  do  this  may  be  giving  way  to  a 
natural  sentiment;  but  they  are  most  effectually  doing 
the  work  of  the  real  oppressors  of  Ireland.  Were  they 
secret  emissaries  of  the  London  police,  were  they  bribed 
with  the  gold  which  the  British  oligarchy  grinds  out  of 
the  toil  of  its  white  slaves  in  mill  and  mine  and  field, 
they  could  not  better  be  doing  its  work.  “Divide  and 
conquer  ”  is  the  golden  maxim  of  the  oppressors  of  man¬ 
kind.  It  is  by  arousing  race  antipathies  and  exciting 
national  animosities,  by  appealing  to  local  prejudices  and 
setting  people  against  people,  that  aristocracies  and 
despotisms  have  been  founded  and  maintained.  They 
who  would  free  men  must  rise  above  such  feelings  if 
they  would  be  successful.  The  greatest  enemy  of  the 
people’s  cause  is  he  who  appeals  to  national  passion  and 
excites  old  hatreds.  He  is  its  best  friend  who  does  his 
utmost  to  bury  them  out  of  sight.  For  that  action  and 
reaction  are  equal  and  uniform  is  the  law  of  the  moral  as 
of  the  physical  world.  Herein  lies  the  far-reaching  sweep 
of  those  sublime  teachings  that,  after  centuries  of  nominal 
acceptance,  the  so-called  Christian  world  yet  ignores,  and 
which  call  on  us  to  answer  not  revilings  with  revilings, 
but  to  meet  hatred  with  love.  “  For,”  as  say  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  of  the  Buddhists,  u  hatred  never  ceases  by  hatred  at 
any  time;  hatred  ceases  by  love;  that  is  an  old  rule.” 
To  undiscriminately  denounce  Englishmen  is  simply  to 
arouse  prejudices  and  excite  animosities — to  separate 
force  that  sought  to  be  united.  To  make  this  the  fight 


62 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


of  the  Irish  people  against  the  English  people  is  to  doom 
it  to  failure.  To  make  it  the  common  cause  of  the  people 
everywhere  against  a  system  which  everywhere  oppresses 
and  robs  them  is  to  make  its  success  assured.  Had  this 
been  made  to  appear,  the  Irish  members  would  not  have 
stood  alone  when  it  came  to  the  final  resistance  to  coercion. 
Had  this  been  made  to  appear,  Great  Britain  would  be  in 
a  ferment  at  the  proposal  to  give  the  government  despotic 
powers.  If  the  Irish  leaders  are  wise,  they  may  yet  avail 
themselves  of  the  rising  tide  of  British  democracy.  Let 
the  Land  Leaguers  adopt  the  noble  maxim  of  the  German 
Social  Democrats.  Let  them  be  Land  Leaguers  first,  and 
Irishmen  afterward.  Let  them  account  him  an  enemy  of 
their  cause  who  seeks  to  pander  to  prejudice  and  arouse 
hate.  Let  them  arouse  to  a  higher  love  than  the  mere 
love  of  country;  to  a  wider  patriotism  than  that  which 
exhausts  itself  on  one  little  sub-division  of  the  human 
race,  one  little  spot  on  the  great  earth’s  surface ;  and  in 
this  name,  and  by  this  sign,  call  upon  their  brothers,  not 
so  much  to  aid  them,  as  to  strike  for  themselves. 

The  Irish  people  have  the  same  inalienable  right  to 
govern  themselves  as  have  every  other  people;  but  the 
full  recognition  of  this  right  need  not  necessarily  involve 
separation,  and  to  talk  of  separation  first  is  to  arouse  pas¬ 
sions  that  will  be  utilized  by  the  worst  enemies  of  Ireland. 
The  demand  for  the  full  political  rights  of  the  Irish  people 
will  be  the  stronger  if  it  be  made  to  line  with  and  include 
the  demand  for  the  full  political  rights  of  the  unenfran¬ 
chised  British  people.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that 
all  the  tendencies  of  the  time  are  not  to  separation,  but 
to  integration ;  not  to  independence,  but  to  interdepen¬ 
dence.  This  is  observable  wherever  modern  influences 
reach,  and  in  all  things.  To  attempt  to  resist  it  is  to 
attempt  to  turn  back  the  tide  of  progress. 


APPEALS  TO  ANIMOSITY. 


63 


It  is  not  with  the  English  people  that  the  Irish  people 
have  canse  of  quarrel.  It  is  with  the  system  that  op¬ 
presses  both.  That  is  the  thing  to  denounce ;  that  is  the 
thing  to  fight.  And  it  is  to  be  fought  most  effectually  by 
uniting  the  masses  against  it.  Monarchy,  aristocracy, 
landlordism,  would  get  but  a  new  lease  of  life  by  the 
arousing  of  sectional  passions.  The  greatest  blow  that 
could  be  struck  against  them  would  be,  scrupulously 
avoiding  everything  that  could  excite  antagonistic  popular 
feeling,  to  carry  this  land  agitation  into  Great  Britain, 
not  as  a  mere  Irish  question,  but  as  a  home  question  as 
well.  To  proclaim  the  universal  truth  that  land  is  of 
natural  right  common  property;  to  abandon  all  timid 
and  half-way  schemes  which  attempt  to  compromise 
between  justice  and  injustice,  and  to  demand  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  a  full  recognition  of  this  natural  right 
would  be  to  do  this.  It  would  inevitably  be  to  put  the 
British  masses  upon  inquiry ;  to  put  British  landholders 
upon  the  defensive,  and  give  them  more  than  enough  to 
do  at  home.  Both  England  and  Scotland  are  ripe  for  such 
an  agitation,  and,  once  fairly  begun,  it  can  have  but  one 
result— the  victory  of  the  popular  cause. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


HOW  TO  WIN. 

OR  is  it  merely  the  laboring-classes  of  Great  Britain 
1  1  who  may  thus  be  brought  into  the  fight,  if  the  true 
standard  be  raised.  To  demand  the  nationalization  of 
land  by  the  simple  means  I  have  proposed  makes  possible 
—nay,  as  the  discussion  goes  on,  makes  inevitable— an 
irresistible  combination,  the  combination  of  labor  and 
capital  against  landlordism.  This  combination  proved 
its  power  by  winning  the  battle  of  free  trade  in  1846 
against  the  most  determined  resistance  of  the  landed 
interest.  It  would  be  much  more  powerful  now,  and,  if 
it  can  again  be  made  on  the  land  question,  it  can  again 
force  the  intrencliments  of  the  landed  aristocracy. 

This  combination  cannot  be  made  on  any  of  the  timid, 
illogical  schemes  as  yet  proposed ;  but  it  can  be  made  on 
the  broad  principle  that  land  is  rightfully  common  prop¬ 
erty.  Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  yet  true  that, 
while  the  present  position  of  the  Irish  agitators  does 
involve  a  menace  to  capital,  the  absolute  denial  of  the 
right  of  private  property  in  land  would  not. 

In  admitting  that  the  landlords  ought  to  get  any  rent 

at  all,  in  admitting  that,  if  the  land  is  taken  from  them, 

they  must  be  paid  for  it,  the  Irish  agitators  give  away 

their  whole  case.  For  in  this  thev  admit  that  the  land 

«/ 

really  belongs  to  the  landlords,  and  put  property  in  land 
in  the  same  category  with  other  property.  Thus  they 


HOW  TO  WIN. 


66 


place  themselves  in  an  indefensible  position;  thus  they 
give  to  the  agitation  a  “communistic”*  character,  and 
excite  against  it  that  natural  and  proper  feeling  which 
strongly  resents  any  attack  upon  the  rights  of  property 
as  an  attack  upon  the  very  foundations  of  society.  It 
was  doubtless  this  mistake  of  the  agitators  in  admitting 
the  right  of  private  property  in  land  to  which  Archbishop 
McCabe  recently  alluded  in  saying  that  some  of  the  utter¬ 
ances  of  the  agitators  excited  the  solicitude  of  the  Holy 
See.  For  this  mistake  gives  to  the  agitation  the  char¬ 
acter  of  an  attack  upon  the  lights  of  property.  If  the 
land  is  really  the  property  of  the  landlords  (and  this  is 
admitted  when  it  is  admitted  that  they  are  entitled  to 
any  rent  or  to  any  compensation),  then  to  limit  the  rent 
which  they  shall  get,  or  to  interfere  with  their  freedom 
to  make  what  terms  they  please  with  tenants,  is  an  attack 
upon  property  rights.  If  the  land  is  rightfully  the  land¬ 
lords’,  then  is  any  compulsion  as  to  how  they  shall  let  it, 
or  on  what  terms  they  shall  part  with  it,  a  bad  and  dan¬ 
gerous  precedent,  which  naturally  alarms  capital  and 
excites  the  solicitude  of  those  who  are  concerned  for  good 
morals  and  social  order.  For,  if  a  man  may  be  made  to 
part  with  one  species  of  property  by  boycotting  or  agita¬ 
tion,  why  not  with  another  ?  If  a  man’s  title  to  land  is 
as  rightful  as  his  title  to  his  watch,  what  is  the  difference 
between  agitation  by  Land  League  meetings  and  Parlia¬ 
mentary  filibustering  to  make  him  give  up  the  one  and 
agitation  with  a  cocked  pistol  to  make  him  give  up  the 
other  ? 

But,  if  it  be  denied  that  land  justly  is,  or  can  be,  private 
property,  if  the  equal  rights  of  the  whole  people  to  the  use  of 
the  elements  gratuitously  furnished  by  Nature  be  asserted 

*  I  use  the  word  in  the  usual  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  the 
vulgar,  and  in  which  a  communist  is  understood  as  one  who  wants 
to  divide  up  other  people’s  property. 


66 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


without  drawback  or  compromise,  then  the  essential  dif¬ 
ference  between  property  in  land  and  property  in  things 
of  human  production  is  at  once  brought  out.  Then  will 
it  clearly  appear  not  only  that  the  denial  of  the  right  of 
individual  property  in  land  does  not  involve  any  menace 
to  legitimate  property  rights,  but  that  the  maintenance  of 
private  property  in  land  necessarily  involves  a  denial  of 
the  right  to  all  other  property,  and  that  the  recognition 
of  the  claims  of  the  landlords  means  a  continuous  robbery 
of  capital  as  well  as  of  labor. 

All  this  will  appear  more  and  more  clearly  as  the  prac¬ 
tical  measures  necessary  to  make  land  common  property 
are  proposed  and  discussed.  These  simple  measures 
involve  no  harsh  proceedings,  no  forcible  dispossession, 
no  shock  to  public  confidence,  no  retrogression  to  a  lower 
industrial  organization,  no  loaning  of  public  money,  or 
establishment  of  cumbrous  commissions.  Instead  of 
doing  violence  to  the  rightful  sense  of  property,  they 
assert  and  vindicate  it.  The  way  to  make  land  common 
property  is  simply  to  take  rent  for  the  common  benefit. 
And  to  do  this,  the  easy  way  is  to  abolish  one  tax  after 
another,  until  the  whole  weight  of  taxation  falls  upon 
the  value  of  land.  When  that  point  is  reached,  the  battle 
is  won.  The  hare  is  caught,  killed,  and  skinned,  and  to 
cook  him  will  be  a  very  easy  matter.  The  real  fight  will 
come  on  the  proposition  to  consolidate  existing  taxation 
upon  land  values.  When  that  is  once  won,  the  landholders 
will  not  merely  have  been  decisively  defeated,  they  will 
have  been  routed ;  and  the  nature  of  land  values  will  be 
so  generally  understood  that  to  raise  taxation  so  as  to 
take  the  whole  rent  for  common  purposes  will  be  a  mere 
matter  of  course. 

The  political  art  is  like  the  military  art.  It  consists  in 
combining  the  greatest  strength  against  the  point  of  least 
resistance.  I  have  pointed  out  the  way  in  which,  in  the 


HOW  TO  WIN. 


67 


case  we  are  considering,  this  can  be  done.  And,  the  more 
the  matter  is  considered,  the  clearer  and  clearer  will  it 
appear  that  there  is  every  practical  reason,  as  there  is 
every  theoretical  reason,  why  the  Irish  reformers  should 
take  this  vantage-ground  of  principle.  To  propose  to  put 
the  public  burdens  upon  the  landholders  is  not  a  novel 
and  unheard-of  thing  against  which  English  prejudice 
would  run  as  something  u  newfangled,”  some  new  inven¬ 
tion  of  modern  socialism.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the 
ancient  English  practice.  It  would  be  but  a  return,  in  a 
form  adapted  to  modern  times,  to  the  system  under  which 
English  land  was  originally  parceled  out  to  the  predeces¬ 
sors  of  the  present  holders— the  just  system,  recognized 
for  centuries,  that  those  who  enjoy  the  common  property 
should  bear  the  common  burdens.  The  putting  of  prop¬ 
erty  in  land  in  the  same  category  as  property  in  things 
produced  by  labor  is  comparatively  modern.  In  England, 
as  in  Ireland  and  Scotland,  as  in  fact  among  every  peo¬ 
ple  of  whom  we  know  anything,  the  land  was  originally 
treated  as  common  property,  and  this  recognition  ran  all 
through  the  feudal  system.  The  essence  of  the  feudal 
system  was  in  treating  the  landholder  not  as  an  owner, 
but  as  a  lessee.  William  the  Conqueror  did  not  give 
away  the  land  of  England  as  the  Church  lands  were  given 
away  by  Henry  VIII.,  when  he  divided  among  his  syco¬ 
phants  the  property  of  the  people,  which,  after  the  manner 
of  the  times,  had  been  set  apart  for  the  support  of  reli¬ 
gious,  educational,  and  charitable  institutions.  To  every 
grant  of  land  made  by  the  Conqueror  was  annexed  a 
condition  which  amounted  to  a  heavy  perpetual  tax  or 
rent.  One  of  his  first  acts  was  to  divide  the  soil  of  Eng¬ 
land  into  sixty  thousand  knights’  fees ;  and  thus,  besides 
many  other  dues  and  obligations,  was  thrown  upon  the 
landholders  the  cost  of  providing  and  maintaining  the 
army.  All  the  long,  costly  wars  that  England  fought 


68 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


during  feudal  times  involved  no  public  debt.  Public 
debt,  pauperism,  and  the  grinding  poverty  of  the  poorer 
classes  came  in  as  the  landholders  gradually  shook  off 
the  obligations  on  which  they  had  received  their  land,  an 
operation  culminating  in  the  abolition  after  the  Restora¬ 
tion  of  the  feudal  tenures,  for  which  were  substituted 
indirect  taxes  that  still  weigh  upon  the  whole  people.  To 
now  reverse  this  process,  to  abolish  the  taxes  which  are 
borne  by  labor  and  capital,  and  to  substitute  for  them  a 
tax  on  rent,  would  be  not  the  adoption  of  anything  new, 
but  a  simple  going  back  to  the  old  plan.  In  England,  as 
in  Ireland,  the  movement  would  appeal  to  the  popular 
imagination  as  a  demand  for  the  reassertion  of  ancient 
rights. 

There  are  other  most  important  respects  in  which  this 
measure  will  commend  itself  to  the  English  mind.  The 
tax  upon  land  values  or  rent  is  in  all  economic  respects 
the  most  perfect  of  taxes.  No  political  economist  will 
deny  that  it  combines  the  maximum  of  certainty  with  the 
minimum  of  loss  and  cost ;  that,  unlike  taxes  upon  capital 
or  exchange  or  improvement,  it  does  not  check  production 
or  enhance  prices  or  fall  ultimately  upon  the  consumer. 
And,  in  proposing  to  abolish  all  other  taxes  in  favor  of 
this  theoretically  perfect  tax,  the  Land  Reformers  will 
have  on  their  side  the  advantage  of  ideas  already  current, 
while  they  can  bring  the  argumentum  ad  Jiominem  to  bear 
on  those  who  might  never  comprehend  an  abstract  prin¬ 
ciple.  Englishmen  of  all  classes  have  happily  been  edu¬ 
cated  up  to  a  belief  in  free  trade,  though  a  very  large 
amount  of  revenue  is  still  collected  from  customs.  Let 
the  Land  Reformers  take  advantage  of  this  by  proposing 
to  carry  out  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  to  its  fullest  extent. 
If  a  revenue  tariff  is  better  than  a  protective  tariff,  then 
no  tariff  at  all  is  better  than  a  revenue  tariff.  Let  them 
propose  to  abolish  the  customs  duties  entirely,  and  to 


HOW  TO  WIN. 


69 


abolish  as  well  harbor  dues  and  lighthouse  dues  and  dock 
charges,  and  in  their  place  to  add  to  the  tax  on  rent,  or 
the  value  of  land  exclusive  of  improvements.  Let  them 
in  the  same  way  propose  to  get  rid  of  the  excise,  the 
various  license  taxes,  the  tax  upon  buildings,  the  onerous 
and  unpopular  income  tax,  etc.,  and  to  saddle  all  public 
expenses  on  the  landlords. 

This  would  bring  home  the  land  question  to  thousands 
and  thousands  who  have  never  thought  of  it  before;  to 
thousands  and  thousands  who  have  heretofore  looked 
upon  the  land  question  as  something  peculiarly  Irish,  or 
something  that  related  exclusively  to  agriculture  and  to 
farmers,  and  have  never  seen  how,  in  various  direct  and 
indirect  ways,  they  have  to  contribute  to  the  immense 
sums  received  by  the  landlords  as  rent.  It  would  be 
putting  the  argument  in  a  shape  in  which  even  the  most 
stupid  could  understand  it.  It  would  be  directing  the 
appeal  to  a  spot  where  even  the  unimaginative  are  sensi¬ 
tive— the  pocket.  How  long  would  a  merchant  or  banker 
or  manufacturer  or  annuitant  regard  as  dangerous  and 
wicked  an  agitation  which  proposed  to  take  taxation  off 
of  him?  Even  the  most  prejudiced  can  be  relied  on  to 
listen  with  patience  to  an  argument  in  favor  of  making 
some  one  else  pay  what  they  now  are  paying. 

Let  me  illustrate  by  a  little  story  what  I  feel  confident 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  policy  I  propose : 

Once  upon  a  time  I  was  the  Pacific-coast  agent  of  an 
Eastern  news  association,  which  took  advantage  of  an 
opposition  telegraph  company  to  run  against  the  Asso¬ 
ciated  Press  monopoly.  The  association  in  California 
consisted  of  one  strong  San  Francisco  paper,  to  which 
telegraphic  news  was  of  much  importance,  and  a  number 
of  interior  papers,  to  which  it  was  of  minor  importance, 
if  of  any  importance  at  all.  It  became  necessary  to  raise 
more  money  for  the  expenses  of  collecting  and  transmit- 


70 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


ting  these  despatches,  and,  thinking  it  only  fair,  I  assessed 
the  increased  cost  to  the  strong  metropolitan  paper.  The 
proprietor  of  this  paper  was  very  indignant.  He  appealed 
to  the  proprietors  of  all  the  other  papers,  and  they  all 
joined  in  his  protest.  I  replied  by  calling  a  meeting.  At 
this  meeting  the  proprietor  of  the  San  Francisco  paper 
led  off  with  an  indignant  speech.  He  was  seconded  by 
several  others,  and  evidently  had  the  sympathy  of  the 
whole  crowd.  Then  came  my  turn.  I  said,  in  effect : 
u  Gentlemen,  yon  can  do  what  you  please  about  this 
matter.  Whatever  satisfies  you  satisfies  me.  The  only 
thing  fixed  is,  that  more  money  has  to  be  raised.  As  this 
San  Francisco  paper  pays  now  a  much  lower  relative  rate 
than  you  do,  I  thought  it  only  fair  that  it  should  pay  the 
increased  cost.  But,  if  you  think  otherwise,  there  is  no 
reason  in  the  world  why  you  should  not  pay  it  yourselves.” 
The  debate  immediately  took  another  turn,  and  in  a  few 
minutes  my  action  was  indorsed  by  a  unanimous  vote,  for 
the  San  Francisco  man  was  so  disgusted  by  the  way  his 
supporters  left  him  that  he  would  not  vote  at  all. 

Now,  that  is  just  about  what  will  happen  to  the  British 
landlords  if  the  question  be  put  in  the  way  I  propose. 
The  British  landowners  are  in  numbers  but  an  insignifi¬ 
cant  minority.  And,  the  more  they  protested  against  the 
injustice  of  having  to  pay  all  the  taxes,  the  quicker  would 
the  public  mind  realize  the  essential  injustice  of  private 
property  in  land,  the  quicker  would  the  majority  of  the 
people  come  to  see  that  the  landowners  ought  not  only  to 
pay  all  the  taxes,  but  a  good  deal  more  besides.  Once 
put  the  question  in  such  a  way  that  the  British  working¬ 
man  will  realize  that  he  pays  two  prices  for  his  ale  and 
half  a  dozen  prices  for  his  tobacco,  because  a  landowners’ 
Parliament  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.  shook  off  their  ancient 
dues  to  the  State,  and  imposed  them  in  indirect  taxation 
on  him;  once  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  well-to-do 


HOW  TO  WIN. 


71 


Englishman,  who  grants  as  lie  pays  his  income  tax,  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  landowner,  who  draws  his 
income  from  property  that  of  natural  right  belongs  to  the 
whole  people,  ought  not  to  pay  it  instead  of  him,  and  it 
will  not  be  long  before  the  absurd  injustice  of  allowing 
rent  to  be  appropriated  by  individuals  will  be  thoroughly 
understood.  This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  asking 
the  British  taxpayer  to  buy  out  the  Irish  landlord  for  ' 
the  sake  of  the  Irish  peasant. 

I  have  been  speaking  as  though  all  landholders  would 
resist  the  change  which  would  sacrifice  their  special 
interests  to  the  larger  interests  of  society.  But  I  am 
satisfied  that  to  think  this  is  to  do  landholders  a  great 
injustice.  For  landholders  as  a  class  are  not  more  stupid 
nor  more  selfish  than  any  other  class.  And  as  they  saw, 
as  they  must  see,  as  the  discussion  progresses,  that  they 
also  would  be  the  gainers  in  the  great  social  change 
which  would  abolish  poverty  and  elevate  the  very  lowest 
classes— the  “  mudsills  ”  of  society,  as  a  Southern  Senator 
expressively  called  them  during  the  Slavery  discussion — 
above  the  want,  the  misery,  the  vice,  and  degradation  in 
which  they  are  now  plunged,  there  are  many  landowners 
who  would  join  heartily  and  unreservedly  in  the  effort  to 
bring  this  change  about.  This  I  believe,  not  merely 
because  my  reading  and  observation  both  teach  me  that 
low,  narrow  views  of  self-interest  are  not  the  strongest 
of  human  motives,  but  because  I  know  that  to-day  among 
those  who  see  the  truth  I  have  here  tried  to  set  forth,  and 
who  would  carry  out  the  reform  I  have  proposed,  are 
many  landholders*  And,  if  they  be  earnest  men,  I  appeal 


*  Among  the  warm  friends  my  book  “  Progress  and  Poverty  ”  has 
found  are  many  landholders — some  of  them  large  landholders.  As 
types  I  may  mention  the  names  of  D.  A.  Learnard,  of  San  Joaquin, 
a  considerable  farmer,  who  had  no  sooner  read  it  than  he  sent  for  a 
dozen  copies  to  circulate  among  his  neighbors ;  Hiram  Tubbs,  of 


72 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


to  landholders  as  confidently  as  to  any  other  class.  There 
is  that  in  a  great  truth  that  can  raise  a  human  soul  above 
the  mists  of  selfishness. 

The  course  which  I  suggest  is  the  only  course  which 
can  be  logically  based  on  principle.  It  has  everything  to 
commend  it.  It  will  concentrate  the  greatest  strength 
against  the  least  resistance.  And  it  will  be  on  the  right 
line.  Every  step  gained  will  be  an  advance  toward  the 
ultimate  goal;  every  step  gained  will  make  easier  the 
next. 


San  Francisco,  the  owner  of  much  valuable  real  estate  in  and  near 
that  city ;  and  Sir  George  Grey,  of  New  Zealand,  the  owner  of  a  good 
deal  of  land  in  that  colony,  of  which  he  was  formerly  governor,  as 
well  as,  I  understand,  of  valuable  estates  in  England. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

IN  speaking  with  special  reference  to  the  case  of  Ireland, 
I  have,  so  far  as  general  principles  are  concerned,  been 
using  it  as  a  stalking-horse.  In  discussing  the  Irish  Land 
Question,  we  really  discuss  the  most  vital  of  American 
questions.  And  if  we  of  the  United  States  cannot  see  the 
beam  in  our  own  eye,  save  by  looking  at  the  mote  in  our 
brother’s,  then  let  ns  look  at  the  mote ;  and  let  us  take 
counsel  together  how  lie  may  get  it  out.  For,  at  least, 
we  shall  in  this  way  learn  how  we  may  deal  with  our  own 
case  when  we  wake  up  to  the  consciousness  of  it. 

And  never  had  the  parable  of  the  mote  and  the  beam 
a  better  illustration  than  in  the  attitude  of  so  many 
Americans  toward  this  Irish  Land  Question.  We  denounce 
the  Irish  land  system !  We  express  our  sympathy  with 
Ireland!  We  tender  our  advice  by  Congressional  and 
legislative  resolution  to  our  British  brethren  across  the 
sea !  Truly  our  indignation  is  cheap  and  our  sympathy 
is  cheap,  and  our  advice  is  very,  very  cheap !  For  what 
are  we  doing  ?  Extending  over  new  soil  the  very  institu¬ 
tion  that  to  them  descended  from  a  ruder  and  a  darker 
time.  With  what  conscience  can  we  lecture  them  ?  With 
all  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  with  institutions  yet 
plastic,  with  millions  of  virgin  acres  yet  to  settle,  it  should 
be  ours  to  do  more  than  vent  denunciation,  and  express 
sympathy,  and  give  advice.  It  should  be  ours  to  show 


74 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


the  way.  This  we  have  not  done ;  this  we  do  not  do. 
Out  in  our  new  States  may  be  seen  the  growth  of  a 
system  of  cultivation  worse  in  its  social  effects  than  that 
which  prevails  in  Ireland.  In  Ireland  the  laborer  has 
some  sort  of  a  home,  and  enjoys  some  of  the  family  affec¬ 
tions.  In  these  great  “wheat-manufacturing”  districts 
the  laborer  is  a  nomad,  his  home  is  in  his  blankets,  which 
he  carries  around  with  him.  The  soil  bears  wheat,  crop 
after  crop,  till  its  fertility  is  gone.  It  does  not  bear  chil¬ 
dren.  These  machine- worked  “grain  factories”  of  the 
great  Republic  of  the  New  World  are  doing  just  what 
was  done  by  the  slave-worked  latifundia  of  the  Roman 
world.  Here  they  prevent,  where  there  they  destroyed, 
“  the  crop  of  men.”  And  in  our  large  cities  may  we  not 
see  misery  of  the  same  kind  as  exists  in  Ireland  ?  If  it  is 
less  in  amount,  is  it  not  merely  because  our  country  is 
yet  newer  5  because  we  have  yet  a  wide  territory  and  a 
sparse  population— conditions  past  which  our  progress  is 
rapidly  carrying  us?  As  for  evictions,  is  it  an  unheard- 
of  thing,  even  in  New  York,  for  families  to  be  turned  out 
of  their  homes  because  they  cannot  pay  the  rent?  Are 
there  not  many  acres  in  this  country  from  which  those 
who  made  homes  have  been  driven  by  sheriffs’  posses,  and 
even  by  troops  ?  Do  not  a  number  of  the  Mussell  Slough 
settlers  lie  in  Santa  Clara  jail  to-day  because  a  great  rail¬ 
road  corporation  set  its  envious  eyes  on  soil  which  they 
had  turned  from  desert  into  garden,  and  they  in  their 
madness  tried  to  resist  ejectment? 

And  the  men  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  who 
vainly  imagine  that  they  may  settle  the  great  question 
now  pressing  upon  them  by  free  trade  in  land,  or  tenant- 
right,  or  some  mild  device  for  establishing  a  peasant 
proprietary— they  may  learn  something  about  their  own 
case  if  they  will  turn  their  eyes  to  us. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


75 


We  have  had  free  trade  in  land ;  we  have  had  in  our 
American  farmer,  owning  his  own  acres,  using  his  own 
capital,  and  working  with  his  own  hands,  something  far 
better  than  peasant  proprietorship.  We  have  had,  what 
no  legislation  can  give  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  vast 
areas  of  virgin  soil.  We  have  had  all  of  these  under 
democratic  institutions.  Yet  we  have  here  social  disease 
of  precisely  the  same  kind  as  that  which  exists  in  Ireland 
and  England.  And  the  reason  is  that  we  have  had  here 
precisely  the  same  cause  —  that  we  have  made  land  private 
property.  So  long  as  this  exists,  our  democratic  institu¬ 
tions  are  vain,  our  pretense  of  equality  but  cruel  irony, 
our  public  schools  can  but  sow  the  seeds  of  discontent. 
So  long  as  this  exists,  material  progress  can  but  force  the 
masses  of  our  people  into  a  harder  and  more  hopeless 
slavery.  Until  we  in  some  way  make  the  land,  what 
Nature  intended  it  to  be,  common  property,  until  we  in 
some  way  secure  to  every  child  born  among  us  his  natural 
birthright,  we  have  not  established  the  Republic  in  any 
sense  worthy  of  the  name,  and  we  cannot  establish  the 
Republic.  Its  foundations  are  quicksand. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


A  LITTLE  ISLAND  OR  A  LITTLE  WORLD. 

IMAGINE  an  island  girt  with  ocean ;  imagine  a  little 
world  swimming  in  space.  Put  on  it,  in  imagination, 
hnman  beings.  Let  them  divide  the  land,  share  and  share 
alike,  as  individual  property.  At  first,  while  population 
is  sparse  and  industrial  processes  rude  and  primitive,  this 
will  work  well  enough. 

Turn  away  the  eyes  of  the  mind  for  a  moment,  let  time 
pass,  and  look  again.  Some  families  will  have  died  out, 
some  have  greatly  multiplied;  on  the  whole,  population 
will  have  largely  increased,  and  even  supposing  there  have 
been  no  important  inventions  or  improvements  in  the 
productive  arts,  the  increase  in  population,  by  causing  the 
division  of  labor,  will  have  made  industry  more  complex. 
During  this  time  some  of  these  people  will  have  been 
careless,  generous,  improvident;  some  will  have  been 
thrifty  and  grasping.  Some  of  them  will  have  devoted 
much  of  their  powers  to  thinking  of  how  they  themselves 
and  the  things  they  see  around  them  came  to  be,  to 
inquiries  and  speculations  as  to  what  there  is  in  the  uni¬ 
verse  beyond  their  little  island  or  their  little  world,  to 
making  poems,  painting  pictures,  or  writing  books ;  to 
noting  the  differences  in  rocks  and  trees  and  shrubs  and 
grasses;  to  classifying  beasts  and  birds  and  fishes  and 
insects— to  the  doing,  in  short,  of  all  the  many  things 
which  add  so  largely  to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge 


A  LITTLE  ISLAND  OR  A  LITTLE  WORLD. 


77 


and  human  happiness,  without  much  or  any  gain  of  wealth 
to  the  doer.  Others  again  will  have  devoted  all  their 
energies  to  the  extending  of  their  possessions.  What, 
then,  shall  we  see,  land  having  been  all  this  time  treated 
as  private  property  ?  Clearly,  we  shall  see  that  the  primi¬ 
tive  equality  has  given  way  to  inequality.  Some  will 
have  very  much  more  than  one  of  the  original  shares  into 
which  the  land  was  divided ;  very  many  will  have  no  land 
at  all.  Suppose  that,  in  all  things  save  this,  our  little 
island  or  our  little  world  is  Utopia— that  there  are  no  wars 
or  robberies ;  that  the  government  is  absolutely  pure  and 
taxes  nominal ;  suppose,  if  you  want  to,  any  sort  of  a  cur¬ 
rency  j  imagine,  if  you  can  imagine  such  a  world  or  island, 
that  interest  is  utterly  abolished;  yet  inequality  in  the 
ownership  of  land  will  have  produced  poverty  and  virtual 
slavery. 

For  the  people  we  have  supposed  are  human  beings— 
that  is  to  say,  in  their  physical  natures  at  least,  they  are 
animals  who  can  live  only  on  land  and  by  the  aid  of  the 
products  of  land.  They  may  make  machines  which  will 
enable  them  to  float  on  the  sea,  or  perhaps  to  fly  in  the 
air,  but  to  build  and  equip  these  machines  they  must  have 
land  and  the  products  of  land,  and  must  constantly  come 
back  to  land.  Therefore  those  who  own  the  land  must 
be  the  masters  of  the  rest.  Thus,  if  one  man  has  come 
to  own  all  the  land,  he  is  their  absolute  master  even  to 
life  or  death.  If  they  can  live  on  the  land  only  on  his 
terms,  then  they  can  live  only  on  his  terms,  for  without 
land  thev  cannot  live.  Thev  are  his  absolute  slaves,  and 
so  long  as  his  ownership  is  acknowledged,  if  they  want 
to  live,  they  must  do  in  everything  as  he  wills. 

If,  however,  the  concentration  of  landownership  has 
not  gone  so  far  as  to  make  one  or  a  very  few  men  the 
owners  of  all  the  land— if  there  are  still  so  many  land- 
owners  that  there  is  competition  between  them  as  well  as 


78 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


between  those  who  have  only  their  labor— then  the  terms 
on  which  these  non-landholders  can  live  will  seem  more 
like  free  contract.  But  it  will  not  be  free  contract.  Land 
can  yield  no  wealth  without  the  application  of  labor  j  labor 
can  produce  no  wealth  without  land.  These  are  the  two 
equally  necessary  factors  of  production.  Yet,  to  say  that 
they  are  equally  necessary  factors  of  production  is  not  to 
say  that,  in  the  making  of  contracts  as  to  how  the  results 
of  production  are  divided,  the  possessors  of  these  two 
meet  on  equal  terms.  For  the  nature  of  these  two  factors 
is  very  different.  Land  is  a  natural  element ;  the  human 
being  must  have  his  stomach  filled  every  few  hours.  Land 
can  exist  without  labor,  but  labor  cannot  exist  without 
land.  If  I  own  a  piece  of  land,  I  can  let  it  lie  idle  for  a 
year  or  for  years,  and  it  will  eat  nothing.  But  the  laborer 
must  eat  every  day,  and  his  family  must  eat.  And  so,  in 
the  making  of  terms  between  them,  the  landowner  has  an 
immense  advantage  over  the  laborer.  It  is  on  the  side 
of  the  laborer  that  the  intense  pressure  of  competition 
comes,  for  in  his  case  it  is  competition  urged  by  hunger. 
And,  further  than  this :  As  population  increases,  as  the 
competition  for  the  use  of  land  becomes  more  and  more 
intense,  so  are  the  owners  of  land  enabled  to  get  for  the 
use  of  their  land  a  larger  and  larger  part  of  the  wealth 
which  labor  exerted  upon  it  produces.  That  is  to  say, 
the  value  of  land  steadily  rises.  Now,  this  steady  rise  in 
the  value  of  land  brings  about  a  confident  expectation  of 
future  increase  of  value,  which  produces  among  land- 
owners  all  the  effects  of  a  combination  to  hold  for  higher 
prices.  Thus  there  is  a  constant  tendency  to  force  mere 
laborers  to  take  less  and  less  or  to  give  more  and  more 
(put  it  which  way  you  please,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing) 
of  the  products  of  their  work  for  the  opportunity  to  work. 
And  thus,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  we  should  see  on 
our  little  island  or  our  little  world  that,  after  a  time  had 


A  LITTLE  ISLAND  OR  A  LITTLE  WORLD. 


79 


passed,  some  of  the  people  would  be  able  to  take  and  enjoy 
a  superabundance  of  all  the  fruits  of  labor  without  doing 
any  labor  at  all,  while  others  would  be  forced  to  work  the 
livelong  day  for  a  pitiful  living. 

But  let  us  introduce  another  element  into  the  supposi¬ 
tion.  Let  us  suppose  great  discoveries  and  inventions— 
such  as  the  steam-engine,  the  power-loom,  the  Bessemer 
process,  the  reaping-machine,  and  the  thousand  and  one 
labor-saving  devices  that  are  such  a  marked  feature  of 
our  era.  What  would  be  the  result  ? 

Manifestly,  the  effect  of  all  such  discoveries  and  inven¬ 
tions  is  to  increase  the  power  of  labor  in  producing  wealth 
—to  enable  the  same  amount  of  wealth  to  be  produced  by 
less  labor,  or  a  greater  amount  with  the  same  labor.  But 
none  of  them  lessen,  or  can  lessen  the  necessity  for  land. 
Until  we  can  discover  some  way  of  making  something 
out  of  nothing— and  that  is  so  far  beyond  our  powers  as 
to  be  absolutely  unthinkable— there  is  no  possible  dis¬ 
covery  or  invention  which  can  lessen  the  dependence  of 
labor  upon  land.  And,  this  being  the  case,  the  effect  of 
these  labor-saving  devices,  land  being  the  private  property 
of  some,  would  simply  be  to  increase  the  proportion  of 
the  wealth  produced  that  landowners  could  demand  for 
the  use  of  their  land.  The  ultimate  effect  of  these  dis¬ 
coveries  and  inventions  would  be  not  to  benefit  the  laborer, 
but  to  make  him  more  dependent. 

And,  since  we  are  imagining  conditions,  imagine  labor- 
saving  inventions  to  go  to  the  farthest  imaginable  point, 
that  is  to  say,  to  perfection.  What  then  ?  Why  then,  the 
necessity  for  labor  being  done  away  with,  all  the  wealth 
that  the  land  could  produce  would  go  entire  to  the  land- 
owners.  None  of  it  whatever  could  be  claimed  by  any 
one  else.  For  the  laborers  there  would  be  no  use  at  all. 
If  they  continued  to  exist,  it  would  be  merely  as  paupers 
on  the  bounty  of  the  landowners ! 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS  POSSIBLE. 

IN  the  effects  upon  the  distribution  of  wealth,  of  making 
land  private  property,  we  may  thus  see  an  explanation 
of  that  paradox  presented  by  modern  progress.  The 
perplexing  phenomena  of  deepening  want  with  increasing 
wealth,  of  labor  rendered  more  dependent  and  helpless 
by  the  very  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery,  are 
the  inevitable  result  of  natural  laws  as  fixed  and  certain 
as  the  law  of  gravitation.  Private  property  in  land  is  the 
primary  cause  of  the  monstrous  inequalities  which  are 
developing  in  modern  society.  It  is  this,  and  not  any 
miscalculation  of  Nature  in  bringing  into  the  world  more 
mouths  than  she  can  feed,  that  gives  rise  to  that  tendency 
of  wages  to  a  minimum— that  “iron  law  of  wages,”  as  the 
Germans  call  it— that,  in  spite  of  all  advances  in  produc¬ 
tive  power,  compels  the  laboring-classes  to  the  least  return 
on  which  they  will  consent  to  live.  It  is  this  that  produces 
all  those  phenomena  that  are  so  often  attributed  to  the 
conflict  of  labor  and  capital.  It  is  this  that  condemns 
Irish  peasants  to  rags  and  hunger,  that  produces  the 
pauperism  of  England  and  the  tramps  of  America.  It  is 
this  that  makes  the  almshouse  and  the  penitentiary  the 
marks  of  what  we  call  high  civilization ;  that  in  the  midst 
of  schools  and  churches  degrades  and  brutalizes  men, 
crushes  the  sweetness  out  of  womanhood  and  the  joy  out 
of  childhood.  It  is  this  that  makes  lives  that  might  be  a 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS  POSSIBLE. 


81 


blessing  a  pain  and  a  curse,  and  every  year  drives  more 
and  more  to  seek  unbidden  refuge  in  the  gates  of  death. 
For,  a  permanent  tendency  to  inequality  once  set  up, 
all  the  forces  of  progress  tend  to  greater  and  greater 
inequality. 

All  this  is  contrary  to  Nature.  The  poverty  and  misery, 
the  vice  and  degradation,  that  spring  from  the  unequal 
distribution  of  wealth,  are  not  the  results  of  natural  law ; 
they  spring  from  our  defiance  of  natural  law.  They  are 
the  fruits  of  our  refusal  to  obey  the  supreme  law  of  jus¬ 
tice.  It  is  because  we  rob  the  child  of  his  birthright ; 
because  we  make  the  bounty  which  the  Creator  intended 
for  all  the  exclusive  property  of  some,  that  these  things 
come  upon  us,  and,  though  advancing  and  advancing,  we 
chase  but  the  mirage. 

When,  lit  by  lightning-flash  or  friction  amid  dry  grasses, 
the  consuming  flames  of  fire  first  flung  their  lurid  glow 
into  the  face  of  man,  how  must  he  have  started  back  in 
affright !  When  he  first  stood  by  the  shores  of  the  sea, 
how  must  its  waves  have  said  to  him,  “  Thus  far  shalt 
thou  go,  but  no  farther  ”  !  Yet,  as  he  learned  to  use  them, 
fire  became  his  most  useful  servant,  the  sea  his  easiest 
highway.  The  most  destructive  element  of  which  we 
know— that  which  for  ages  and  ages  seemed  the  very 
thunderbolt  of  the  angry  gods— is,  as  we  are  now  begin¬ 
ning  to  learn,  fraught  for  us  with  untold  powers  of  use¬ 
fulness.  Already  it  enables  us  to  annihilate  space  in  our 
messages,  to  illuminate  the  night  with  new  suns ;  and  its 
uses  are  only  beginning.  And  throughout  all  Nature,  as 
far  as  we  can  see,  whatever  is  potent  for  evil  is  potent  for 
good.  “Dirt,”  said  Lord  Brougham,  “is  matter  in  the 
wrong  place.”  And  so  the  squalor  and  vice  and  misery 
that  abound  in  the  verv  heart  of  our  civilization  are  but 
results  of  the  misapplication  of  forces  in  their  nature  most 
elevating. 


82 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


I  doubt  not  that  whichever  way  a  man  may  turn  to 
inquire  of  Nature,  he  will  come  upon  adjustments  which 
will  arouse  not  merely  his  wonder,  but  his  gratitude.  Yet 
what  has  most  impressed  me  with  the  feeling  that  the 
laws  of  Nature  are  the  laws  of  beneficent  intelligence  is 
what  I  see  of  the  social  possibilities  involved  in  the  law 
of  rent.  Rent*  springs  from  natural  causes.  It  arises, 
as  society  develops,  from  the  differences  in  natural  oppor¬ 
tunities  and  the  differences  in  the  distribution  of  popula- 

* 

tion.  It  increases  with  the  division  of  labor,  with  the 
advance  of  the  arts,  with  the  progress  of  invention.  And 
thus,  by  virtue  of  a  law  impressed  upon  the  very  nature 
of  things,  has  the  Creator  provided  that  the  natural 
advance  of  mankind  shall  be  an  advance  toward  equality, 
an  advance  toward  cooperation,  an  advance  toward  a 
social  state  in  which  not  even  the  weakest  need  be  crowded 
to  the  wall,  in  which  even  for  the  unfortunate  and  the 
cripple  there  may  be  ample  provision.  For  this  revenue, 
which  arises  from  the  common  property,  which  represents  * 
not  the  creation  of  value  by  the  individual,  but  the  crea¬ 
tion  by  the  community  as  a  whole,  which  increases  just 
as  society  develops,  affords  a  common  fund,  which,  properly 
used,  tends  constantly  to  equalize  conditions,  to  open  the 
largest  opportunities  for  all,  and  utterly  to  banish  want 
or  the  fear  of  want. 

The  squalid  poverty  that  festers  in  the  heart  of  our 
civilization,  the  vice  and  crime  and  degradation  and 
ravening  greed  that  flow  from  it,  are  the  results  of  a 
treatment  of  land  that  ignores  the  simple  law  of  justice, 
a  law  so  clear  and  plain  that  it  is  universally  recognized 
by  the  veriest  savages.  What  is  by  nature  the  common 
birthright  of  all,  we  have  made  the  exclusive  property  of 


*  I,  of  course,  use  the  word  “rent”  in  its  economic,  not  in  its 
common  sense,  meaning  by  it  what  is  commonly  called  ground-rent. 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS  POSSIBLE. 


83 


individuals;  what  is  by  natural  law  the  common  fund, 
from  which  common  wants  should  be  met,  we  give  to  a 
few  that  they  may  lord  it  over  their  fellows.  And  so 
some  are  gorged  while  some  go  hungry,  and  more  is 
wasted  than  would  suffice  to  keep  all  in  luxury. 

In  this  nineteenth  century,  among  any  people  who  have 
begun  to  utilize  the  forces  and  methods  of  modern  pro¬ 
duction,  there  is  no  necessity  for  want.  There  is  no  good 
reason  why  even  the  poorest  should  not  have  all  the  com¬ 
forts,  all  the  luxuries,  all  the  opportunities  for  culture, 
all  the  gratifications  of  refined  taste  that  only  the  richest 
now  enjoy.  There  is  no  reason  why  any  one  should  be 
compelled  to  long  and  monotonous  labor.  Did  invention 
and  discovery  stop  to-day,  the  forces  of  production  are 
ample  for  this.  What  hampers  production  is  the  unnatural 
inequality  in  distribution.  And,  with  just  distribution, 
invention  and  discovery  would  only  have  begun. 

Appropriate  rent  in  the  way  I  propose,  and  speculative 
rent  would  be  at  once  destroyed.  The  dogs  in  the  manger 
who  are  now  holding  so  much  land  they  have  no  use  for, 
in  order  to  extract  a  high  price  from  those  who  do  want 
to  use  it,  would  be  at  once  choked  off,  and  land  from 
which  labor  and  capital  are  now  debarred  under  penalty 
of  a  heavy  fine  would  be  thrown  open  to  improvement 
and  use.  The  incentive  to  land  monopoly  would  be  gone. 
Population  would  spread  where  it  is  now  too  dense,  and 
become  denser  where  it  is  now  too  sparse. 

Appropriate  rent  in  this  way,  and  not  only  would  natu¬ 
ral  opportunities  be  thus  opened  to  labor  and  capital,  but 
all  the  taxes  which  now  weigh  upon  production  and  rest 
upon  the  consumer  could  be  abolished.  The  demand  for 
labor  would  increase,  wages  would  rise,  every  wheel  of 
production  would  be  set  in  motion. 

Appropriate  rent  in  this  way,  and  the  present  expenses 
of  government  would  be  at  once  very  much  reduced— 


84 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


reduced  directly  by  the  saving  in  the  present  cumbrous 
and  expensive  schemes  of  taxation,  reduced  indirectly  by 
the  diminution  in  pauperism  and  in  crime.  This  simpli¬ 
fication  in  governmental  machinery,  this  elevation  of  moral 
tone  which  would  result,  would  make  it  possible  for  govern¬ 
ment  to  assume  the  running  of  railroads,  telegraphs,  and 
other  businesses  which,  being  in  their  nature  monopolies, 
cannot,  as  experience  is  showing,  be  safely  left  in  the 
hands  of  private  individuals  and  corporations.  In  short, 
losing  its  character  as  a  repressive  agency,  government 
could  thus  gradually  pass  into  an  administrative  agency 
of  the  great  cooperative  association— society. 

For,  appropriate  rent  in  this  way,  and  there  would  be 
at  once  a  large  surplus  over  and  above  what  are  now 
considered  the  legitimate  expenses  of  government.  We 
could  divide  this,  if  we  wanted  to,  among  the  whole  com¬ 
munity,  share  and  share  alike.  Or  we  could  give  every 
boy  a  small  capital  for  a  start  when  he  came  of  age,  every 
girl  a  dower,  every  widow  an  annuity,  every  aged  person 
a  pension,  out  of  this  common  estate.  Or  we  could  do 
with  our  great  common  fund  many,  many  things  that 
would  be  for  the  common  benefit,  many,  many  things  that 
would  give  to  the  poorest  what  even  the  richest  cannot 
now  enjoy.  We  could  establish  free  libraries,  lectures, 
museums,  art-galleries,  observatories,  gymnasiums,  baths, 
parks,  theaters ;  we  could  line  our  roads  with  fruit-trees, 
and  make  our  cities  clean  and  wholesome  and  beautiful ; 
we  could  conduct  experiments,  and  offer  rewards  for 
inventions,  and  throw  them  open  to  public  use.* 

Think  of  the  enormous  waste,:  that  now  go  on :  The 
waste  of  false  revenue  systems,  which  hamper  production 
and  bar  exchange,  which  fine  a  man  for  erecting  a  building 


*  A  million  dollars  spent  in  premiums  and  experiments  would,  in 
all  probability,  make  aerial  navigation  an  accomplished  fact. 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS  POSSIBLE. 


85 


where  none  stood  before,  or  for  making  two  blades  of 
grass  grow  where  there  was  but  one.  The  waste  of  unem¬ 
ployed  labor,  of  idle  machinery,  of  those  periodical  depres¬ 
sions  of  industry  almost  as  destructive  as  war.  The  waste 
entailed  by  poverty,  and  the  vice  and  crime  and  thriftless¬ 
ness  and  drunkenness  that  spring  from  it;  the  waste 
entailed  by  that  greed  of  gain  that  is  its  shadow,  and 
which  makes  business  in  large  part  but  a  masked  war; 
the  waste  entailed  by  the  fret  and  worry  about  the  mere 
physical  necessities  of  existence,  to  which  so  many  of  us 
are  condemned;  the  waste  entailed  by  ignorance,  by 
cramped  and  undeveloped  faculties,  by  the  turning  of 
human  beings  into  mere  machines  ! 

Think  of  these  enormous  wastes,  and  of  the  others 
which,  like  these,  are  due  to  the  fundamental  wrong  which 
produces  an  unjust  distribution  of  wealth  and  distorts 
the  natural  development  of  society,  and  you  will  begin  to 
see  what  a  higher,  purer,  richer  civilization  would  be 
made  possible  by  the  simple  measure  that  will  assert 
natural  rights.  You  will  begin  to  see  how,  even  if  no 
one  but  the  present  landholders  were  to  be  considered, 
this  would  be  the  greatest  boon  that  could  be  vouchsafed 
them  by  society,  and  that,  for  them  to  fight  it,  would  be 
as  if  the  dog  with  a  tin  kettle  tied  to  his  tail  should  snap 
at  the  hand  that  offered  to  free  him.  Even  the  greatest 
landholder !  As  for  such  landholders  as  our  working 
farmers  and  homestead-owners,  the  slightest  discussion 
would  show  them  that  they  had  everything  to  gain  by 
the  change.  But  even  such  landholders  as  the  Duke  of 
Westminster  and  the  Astors  would  be  gainers. 

For  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  injustice  that  it  really 
profits  no  one.  When  and  where  was  slavery  good  for 
slaveholders?  Did  her  cruelties  in  America,  her  expul¬ 
sions  of  Moors  and  Jews,  her  burnings  of  heretics,  profit 
Spain?  Has  England  gained  by  her  injustice  toward 


86 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Ireland?  Did  not  the  curse  of  an  unjust  social  system 
rest  on  Louis  XIV.  and  Louis  XV.  as  well  as  on  the 
poorest  peasant  whom  it  condemned  to  rags  and  starva¬ 
tion— as  well  as  on  that  Louis  whom  it  sent  to  the  block? 
Is  the  Czar  of  Russia  to  be  envied  ? 

This  we  may  know  certainly,  this  we  may  hold  to  con¬ 
fidently:  that  which  is  unjust  can  really  profit  no  one; 
that  which  is  just  can  really  harm  no  one.  Though  all 
other  lights  move  and  circle,  this  is  the  pole-star  by  which 
we  may  safely  steer. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS. 

WHEN  we  think  of  the  civilization  that  might  be, 
how  poor  and  pitiful,  how  little  better  than  utter 
barbarism,  seems  this  civilization  of  which  we  boast ! 
Even  here,  where  it  has  had  the  freest  field  and  fullest 
development !  Even  here  ! 

This  is  a  broad  land  and  a  rich  land.  How  wide  it  is, 
how  rich  it  is,  how  the  fifty  millions  of  us  already  here 
are  but  beginning  to  scratch  it,  a  man  cannot  begin  to 
realize,  till  he  does  some  thousands  of  miles  of  traveling- 
over  it.  There  are  a  school  and  a  church  and  a  newspaper 
in  every  hamlet ;  we  have  no  privileged  orders,  no  legacies 
of  antiquated  institutions,  no  strong  and  covertly  hostile 
neighbors*  who  in  fancy  or  reality  oblige  us  to  keep  up 
great  standing  armies.  We  have  had  the  experience  of 
all  other  nations  to  guide  us  in  selecting  what  is  good  and 
rejecting  what  is  bad.  In  politics,  in  religion,  in  science, 
in  mechanism,  everything  shows  the  latest  improvements. 
We  think  we  stand,  and  in  fact  we  do  stand,  in  the  very 
van  of  civilization.  Food  here  is  cheaper,  wages  higher, 
than  anywhere  else.  There  is  here  a  higher  average  of 
education,  of  intelligence,  of  material  comfort,  and  of 
individual  opportunity,  than  among  any  other  of  the 
great  civilized  nations.  Here  modern  civilization  is  at 
its  very  best.  Yet  even  here ! 


88 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Last  winter  I  was  in  San  Francisco.  There  are  in  San 
Francisco  citizens  who  can  build  themselves  houses  that 
cost  a  million  and  a  half ;  citizens  who  can  give  each  of 
their  children  two  millions  of  registered  United  States 
bonds  for  a  Christmas  present;  citizens  who  can  send 
their  wives  to  Paris  to  keep  house  there,  or  rather  to 
“keep  palace ”  in  a  style  that  outdoes  the  lavishness  of 
Russian  grand  dukes ;  citizens  whose  daughters  are  golden 
prizes  to  the  bluest-blooded  of  English  aristocrats ;  citizens 
who  can  buy  seats  in  the  United  States  Senate  and  leave 
them  empty,  just  to  show  their  grandeur.  There  are, 
also,  in  San  Francisco  other  citizens.  Last  winter  I  could 
hardfy  walk  a  block  without  meeting  a  citizen  begging 
for  ten  cents.  And,  when  a  charity  fund  was  raised  to 
give  work  with  pick  and  shovel  to  such  as  would  rather 
work  than  beg,  the  applications  were  so  numerous  that, 
to  make  the  charity  fund  go  as  far  as  possible,  one  set  of 
men  was  discharged  after  having  been  given  a  few  days’ 
work,  in  order  to  make  room  for  another  set.  This  and 
much  else  of  the  same  sort  I  saw  in  San  Francisco  last 
winter.  Likewise  in  Sacramento,  and  in  other  towns. 

Last  summer,  on  the  plains,  I  took  from  its  tired 
mother,  and  held  in  my  arms,  a  little  sun-browned  baby, 
the  youngest  of  a  family  of  the  sturdy  and  keen  Western 
New  England  stock,  who  alone  in  their  two  wagons  had 
traveled  near  three  thousand  miles  looking  for  some  place 
to  locate  and  finding  none,  and  who  were  now  returning 
to  where  the  father  and  his  biggest  boy  could  go  to  work 
on  a  railroad,  what  they  had  got  by  the  sale  of  their 
Nebraska  farm  all  gone.  And  I  walked  awhile  by  the 
side  of  long,  lank  Southwestern  men  who,  after  similar 
fruitless  journeyings  way  up  into  Washington  Territory, 
were  going  back  to  the  Choctaw  Nation. 

This  winter  I  have  been  in  New  York.  New  York  is 
the  greatest  and  richest  of  American  cities — the  third  city 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS. 


89 


of  the  modern  world,  and  moving  steadily  toward  the 
first  place.  This  is  a  time  of  great  prosperity.  Never 
before  were  so  many  goods  sold,  so  much  business  done. 
Real  estate  is  advancing  with  big  jumps,  and  within  the 
last  few  months  many  fortunes  have  been  made  in  buying 
and  selling  vacant  lots.  Landlords  nearly  everywhere  are 
demanding  increased  rents  $  asking  in  some  of  the  business 
quarters  an  increase  of  three  hundred  per  cent.  Money 
is  so  plenty  that  government  four  per  cents,  sell  for  114, 
and  a  bill  is  passing  Congress  for  refunding  the  maturing 
national  debt  at  three  per  cent,  per  annum,  a  rate  that 
awhile  ago  in  California  was  not  thought  exorbitant  per 
month.  All  sorts  of  shares  and  bonds  have  been  going 
up  and  up.  You  can  sell  almost  anything  if  you  give  it 
a  high-sounding  corporate  name  and  issue  well-printed 
shares  of  stock.  Seats  in  the  Board  of  Brokers  are  worth 
thirty  thousand  dollars,  and  are  cheap  at  that.  There  are 
citizens  here  who  rake  in  millions  at  a  single  operation  with 
as  much  ease  as  a  faro-dealer  rakes  in  a  handful  of  chips; 

Nor  is  this  the  mere  seeming  prosperity  of  feverish 
speculation.  The  country  is  really  prosperous.  The  crops 
have  been  enormous,  the  demand  insatiable.  We  have  at 
last  a  sound  currency ;  gold  has  been  pouring  in.  The 
railroads  have  been  choked  with  produce,  steel  rails  are 
being  laid  faster  than  ever  before ;  all  sorts  of  factories 
are  running  full  time  or  overtime.  So  prosperous  is  the 
country,  so  good  are  the  times,  that,  at  the  Presidential 
election  a  few  months  since,  the  determining  argument 
was  that  we  could  not  afford  to  take  the  chance  of  dis¬ 
turbing  so  much  material  prosperity  by  a  political  change. 

Nevertheless,  prosperous  as  are  these  times,  citizens  of 
the  United  States  beg  you  on  the  streets  for  ten  cents 
and  five  cents,  and  although  you  know  that  there  are  in 
this  city  two  hundred  charitable  societies,  although  you 
realize  that  on  general  principles  to  give  money  in  this 


90  THE  LAND  QUESTION. 

way  is  to  do  evil  rather  than  good,  you  are  afraid  to  refuse 
them  when  you  read  of  men  in  this  great  city  freezing  to 
death  and  starving  to  death.  Prosperous  as  are  these 
times,  women  are  making  overalls  for  sixty  cents  a  dozen, 
and  you  can  hire  citizens  for  trivial  sums  to  parade  up 
and  down  the  streets  all  day  with  advertising  placards  on 
their  backs.  I  get  on  a  horse-car  and  ride  with  the  driver. 
He  is  evidently  a  sober,  steady  man,  as  intelligent  as  a 
man  can  be  who  drives  a  horse-car  all  the  time  he  is  not 
asleep  or  eating  his  meals.  He  tells  me  he  has  a  wife  and 
four  children.  He  gets  home  (if  a  couple  of  rooms  can  be 
called  a  home)  at  two  o’clock  in  the  morning ;  he  has  to 
be  back  on  his  car  at  nine.  Sunday  he  has  a  couple  of 
hours  more,  which  he  has  to  put  in  in  sleep,  else,  as  he 
says,  he  would  utterly  break  down.  His  children  he  never 
sees,  save  when  one  of  them  comes  at  noon  or  supper-time 
to  the  liorse-car  route  with  something  for  him  to  eat  in 
a  tin  pail.  He  gets  for  his  day’s  work  one  dollar  and 
seventy-five  cents— a  sum  that  will  buy  at  Delmonico’s  a 
beefsteak  and  cup  of  coffee.  I  say  to  him  that  it  must 
be  pretty  hard  to  pay  rent  and  keep  six  persons  on  one 
dollar  and  seventy-five  cents  a  day.  He  says  it  is ;  that 
he  has  been  trying  for  a  month  to  get  enough  ahead  to 
buy  a  new  pair  of  shoes,  but  he  hasn’t  yet  succeeded.  I 
ask  why  he  does  not  leave  such  a  job.  He  says,  “What 
can  I  do  ?  There  are  a  thousand  men  ready  to  step  into 
my  place !  ”  And  so,  in  this  time  of  prosperity,  he  is 
chained  to  his  car.  The  horses  that  he  drives,  they  are 
changed  six  times  during  his  working-day.  They  have 
lots  of  time  to  stretch  themselves  and  rest  themselves  and 
eat  in  peace  their  plentiful  meals,  for  they  are  worth  from 
one  to  two  hundred  dollars  each,  and  it  would  be  a  loss 
to  the  company  for  them  to  fall  ill.  But  this  driver,  this 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  he  may  fall  ill  or  drop  dead, 
and  the  company  would  not  lose  a  cent.  As  between  him 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS. 


91 


and  the  beasts  he  drives,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this 
most  prosperous  era  is  more  prosperous  for  horses  than 
for  men. 

Our  Napoleon  of  Wall  Street,  our  rising  Charlemagne 
of  railroads,  who  came  to  this  city  with  nothing  but  a 
new  kind  of  mouse-trap  in  a  mahogany  box,  but  who  now, 
though  yet  in  the  vigor  of  his  prime,  counts  his  wealth 
by  hundreds  of  millions,  if  it  can  be  counted  at  all,  is 
interviewed  by  a  reporter  just  as  he  is  about  to  step 
aboard  his  palace-car  for  a  grand  combination  expedition 
into  the  Southwest.  He  descants  upon  the  services  he  is 
rendering  in  welding  into  one  big  machine  a  lot  of  smaller 
machines,  in  uniting  into  one  vast  railroad  empire  the 
separated  railroad  kingdoms.  He  likewise  descants  upon 
the  great  prosperity  of  the  whole  country.  Everybody  is 
prosperous  and  contented,  he  says :  there  is,  of  course,  a 
good  deal  of  misery  in  the  big  cities,  but,  then,  there 
always  is ! 

Yet  not  alone  in  the  great  cities.  I  ride  on  the  Hudson 
River  Railroad  on  a  bitter  cold  day,  and  from  one  of  the 
pretty  towns  with  Dutch  names  gets  in  a  constable  with 
a  prisoner,  whom  he  is  to  take  to  the  Albany  penitentiary. 
In  this  case  justice  has  been  swift  enough,  for  the  crime, 
the  taking  of  a  shovel,  has  been  committed  only  a  few 
hours  before.  Such  coat  as  the  man  has  he  keeps  but¬ 
toned  up,  even  in  the  hot  car,  for,  the  constable  says,  he 
has  no  underclothes  at  all.  He  stole  the  shovel  to  get  to 
the  penitentiary,  where  it  is  warm.  The  constable  says 
they  have  lots  of  such  cases,  and  that  even  in  these  good 
times  these  pretty  country  towns  are  infested  with  such 
tramps.  With  all  our  vast  organizing,  our  developing  of 
productive  powers  and  cheapening  of  transportation,  we 
are  yet  creating  a  class  of  utter  pariahs.  And  they  are  to 
be  found  not  merely  in  the  great  cities,  but  wherever  the 
locomotive  runs. 


92 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Is  it  real  advance  in  civilization  which,  on  the  one  hand, 
produces  these  great  captains  of  industry,  and,  on  the 
other,  these  social  outcasts  ? 

It  is  the  year  of  grace  1881,  and  of  the  Republic  the 
105th.  The  girl  who  has  brought  in  coal  for  my  fire  is 
twenty  years  old.  She  was  born  in  New  York,  and  can 
neither  read  nor  write.  To  me,  when  I  heard  it,  this 
seemed  sin  and  shame,  and  I  got  her  a  spelling-book.  She 
is  trying  what  she  can,  but  it  is  uphill  work.  She  has 
really  no  time.  Last  night  when  I  came  in,  at  eleven, 
she  was  not  through  scrubbing  the  halls.  She  gets  four 
dollars  a  month.  Her  shoes  cost  two  dollars  a  pair.  She 
says  she  can  sew;  but  I  guess  it  is  about  as  I  can.  In 
the  natural  course  of  things,  this  girl  will  be  a  mother  of 
citizens  of  the  Republic. 

Underneath  are  girls  who  can  sew ;  they  run  sewing- 
machines  with  their  feet  all  day.  I  have  seen  girls  in 
Asia  carrying  water-jugs  on  their  heads  and  young  women 
in  South  America  bearing  burdens.  They  were  lithe  and 
strong  and  symmetrical ;  but  to  turn  a  young  woman  into 
motive  power  for  a  sewing-machine  is  to  weaken  and 
injure  her  physically.  And  these  girls  are  to  rear,  or 
ought  to  rear,  citizens  of  the  Republic. 

But  there  is  worse  and  worse  than  this.  Go  out  into 
the  streets  at  night,  and  you  will  find  them  filled  with 
girls  who  will  never  be  mothers.  To  the  man  who  has 
known  the  love  of  mother,  of  sister,  of  sweetheart,  wife, 
and  daughter,  this  is  the  saddest  sight  of  all. 

The  ladies  of  the  Brooklyn  churches— they  are  getting 
up  petitions  for  the  suppression  of  Mormon  polygamy; 
they  would  have  it  rooted  out  with  pains  and  penalties, 
trampled  out,  if  need  be,  with  fire  and  sword ;  and  their 
reverend  Congressman-elect  is  going,  when  he  takes  his 
seat,  to  introduce  a  most  stringent  bill  to  that  end ;  for 
that  a  man  should  have  more  wives  than  one  is  a  burning 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS. 


93 


scandal  in  a  Christian  country.  So  it  is ;  but  there  are 
also  other  burning  scandals.  As  for  scandals  that  excite 
talk,  I  will  spare  Brooklyn  a  comparison  with  Salt  Lake. 
But  as  to  ordinary  things :  I  have  walked  through  the 
streets  of  Salt  Lake  City,  by  day  and  by  night,  without 
seeing  what  in  the  streets  of  New  York  or  Brooklyn 
excites  no  comment.  Polygamy  is  unnatural  and  wrong, 
no  doubt  of  that,  for  Nature  brings  into  the  world  some¬ 
thing  over  twenty-two  boys  for  every  twenty  girls.  But 
is  not  a  state  of  society  unnatural  and  wrong  in  which 
there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  girls  for  whom  no 
husband  ever  offers?  Can  we  brag  of  a  state  of  society 
in  which  one  citizen  can  load  his  wife  with  more  diamonds 
than  an  Indian  chief  can  put  beads  on  his  squaw,  while 
many  other  citizens  are  afraid  to  marry  lest  they  cannot 
support  a  wife— a  state  of  society  in  which  prostitution 
flourishes?  Polygamy  is  bad,  but  is  it  not  better  than 
that?  Civilization  is  advancing  day  by  day;  never  was 
such  progress  as  we  are  making !  Yet  divorces  are 
increasing  and  insanity  is  increasing.  What  is  the  goal 
of  a  civilization  that  tends  toward  free  love  and  the  mad¬ 
house  ? 

This  is  a  most  highly  civilized  community.  There  is 
not  a  bear  nor  wolf  on  Manhattan  Island,  save  in  a  mena¬ 
gerie.  Yet  it  is  easier,  where  they  are  worst,  to  guard 
against  bears  and  wolves  than  it  is  to  guard  against  the 
human  beasts  of  prey  that  roam  this  island.  In  this 
highly  civilized  city  every  lower  window  has  to  be  barred, 
every  door  locked  and  bolted ;  even  door-mats,  not  worth 
twenty-five  cents,  you  will  see  chained  to  the  steps.  Stop 
for  a  moment  in  a  crowd  and  your  watch  is  gone  as  if  by 
magic ;  shirt-studs  are  taken  from  their  owners7  bosoms, 
and  ear-rings  cut  from  ladies’  ears.  Even  a  standing 
army  of  policemen  do  not  prevent  highway  robbery ; 
there  are  populous  districts  that  to  walk  through  after 


94 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


nightfall  is  a  risk,  and  where  yon  have  far  more  need  to 
go  armed  and  to  be  wary  than  in  tjie  backwoods.  There 
are  dens  into  which  men  are  lured  only  to  be  drugged  and 
robbed,  sometimes  to  be  murdered.  All  the  resources  of 
science  and  inventive  genius  are  exhausted  in  making 
burglar-proof  strong  rooms  and  safes,  yet,  as  the  steel 
plate  becomes  thicker  and  harder,  so  does  the  burglar’s 
tool  become  keener.  If  the  combination  lock  cannot  be 
picked,  it  is  blown  open.  If  not  a  crack  large  enough  for 
the  introduction  of  powder  is  left,  then  the  air-pump  is 
applied  and  a  vacuum  is  created.  So  that  those  who  in 
the  heart  of  civilization  would  guard  their  treasures  safely 
must  come  back  to  the  most  barbarous  device,  and  either 
themselves,  or  by  proxy,  sleeplessly  stand  guard.  What 
sort  of  a  civilization  is  this?  In  what  does  civilization 
essentially  consist  if  not  in  civility— that  is  to  say,  in 
respect  for  the  rights  of  person  and  of  property? 

Yet  this  is  not  all,  nor  the  worst.  These  are  but  the 
grosser  forms  of  that  spirit  that  in  the  midst  of  our  civili¬ 
zation  compels  every  one  to  stand  on  guard.  What  is  the 
maxim  of  business  intercourse  among  the  most  highly 
respectable  classes  ?  That  if  you  are  swindled  it  will  be 
your  own  fault ;  that  you  must  treat  every  man  you  have 
dealings  with  as  though  he  but  wanted  the  chance  to  cheat 
and  rob  you.  Caveat  emptor.  “Let  the  buyer  beware.” 

If  a  man  steal  a  few  dollars  he  mav  stand  a  chance  of 

«/ 

going  to  the  penitentiary— I  read  the  other  day  of  a  man 
who  was  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  stealing  four  cents 
from  a  liorse-car  company.  But,  if  he  steal  a  million  by 
business  methods,- he  is  courted  and  flattered,  even  though 
he  steal  the  poor  little  savings  which  washerwomen  and 
sewing-girls  have  brought  to  him  in  trust,  even  though 
he  rob  widows  and  orphans  of  the  security  which  dead 
men  have  struggled  and  stinted  to  provide. 


This  is  a  most  Christian  city.  There  are  churches  and 
churches.  All  sorts  of  churches,  where  are  preached  all 


THE  CIVILIZATION  THAT  IS. 


95 


sorts  of  religions,  save  that  which  once  in  Galilee  tanglit 
the  arrant  socialistic  doctrine  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel 
to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man 
to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  •  all  save  that  which  once  in 
Jerusalem  drove  the  money-changers  from  the  temple. 
Churches  of  brown  and  gray  and  yellow  stone,  lifting^ 
toward  heaven  in  such  noble  symmetry  that  architecture 
seems  invocation  and  benison  5  where,  on  stained-glass 
windows,  glow  angel  and  apostle,  and  the  entering  light 
is  dimmed  to  a  soft  glory ;  where  such  music  throbs  and 
supplicates  and  bursts  in  joy  as  once  in  St.  Sophia  ravished 
the  souls  of  heathen  Northmen  •  churches  where  richly 
cushioned  pews  let  for  the  very  highest  prices,  and  the 
auctioneer  determines  who  shall  sit  in  the  foremost  seats ; 
churches  outside  of  which  on  Sunday  stand  long  lines  of 
carriages,  on  each  carriage  a  coachman.  And  there  are 
white  marble  churches,  so  pure  and  shapely  that  the  stone 
seems  to  have  bloomed  and  flowered — the  concrete  expres¬ 
sion  of  a  grand,  sweet  thought.  Churches  restful  to  the 
very  eye,  and  into  which  the  weary  and  heavy-laden  can 
enter  and  join  in  the  worship  of  their  Creator  for  no 
larger  an  admission  fee  than  it  costs  on  the  Bowery  to 
see  the  bearded  lady  or  the  Zulu  giant  eight  feet  high. 
And  then  there  are  mission  churches,  run  expressly  for 
poor  people,  where  it  does  not  cost  a  cent.  There  is  no 
lack  of  churches.  There  are,  in  fact,  more  churches  than 
there  are  people  who  care  to  attend  them.  And  there  are 
likewise  Sunday-schools,  and  big  religious  “book  con¬ 
cerns,”  and  tract  societies,  and  societies  for  spreading  the 
light  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  in  foreign  parts. 

Yet,  land  a  heathen  on  the  Battery  with  money  in  his 
pocket,  and  he  will  be  robbed  of  the  last  cent  of  it  before 
he  is  a  day  older.  “  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.” 
I  wonder  whether  they  who  send  missionaries  to  the  hea¬ 
then  ever  read  the  daily  papers.  I  think  I  could  take  a 
file  of  these  newspapers,  and  from  their  daily  clironiclings 


96 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


match  anything  that  conld  be  told  in  the  same  period  of 
any  heathen  community— at  least,  of  any  heathen  com¬ 
munity  in  a  like  state  of  peace  and  prosperity.  I  think  I 
could  take  a  file  of  these  papers,  and  match,  horror  for 
horror,  all  that  returning  missionaries  have  to  tell— even 
to  the  car  of  Juggernaut  or  infants  tossed  from  mothers’ 
arms  into  the  sacred  river;  even  to  Ashantee  “customs” 
or  cannibalistic  feasts. 

I  do  not  say  that  such  things  are  because  of  civilization, 
or  because  of  Christianity.  On  the  contrary,  I  point  to 
them  -as  inconsistent  with  civilization,  as  incompatible 
with  Christianity.  They  show  that  our  civilization  is 
one-sided  and  cannot  last  as  at  present  based ;  they  show 
that  our  so-called  Christian  communities  are  not  Christian 
at  all.  I  believe  a  civilization  is  possible  in  which  all 
could  be  civilized— in  which  such  things  would  be  impos¬ 
sible.  But  it  must  be  a  civilization  based  on  justice  and 
acknowledging  the  equal  rights  of  all  to  natural  oppor¬ 
tunities.  I  believe  that  there  is  in  true  Christianity  a 
power  to  regenerate  the  world.  But  it  must  be  a  Chris¬ 
tianity  that  attacks  vested  wrongs,  not  that  spurious  thing 
that  defends  them.  The  religion  which  allies  itself  with 
injustice  to  preach  down  the  natural  aspirations  of  the 
masses  is  worse  than  atheism. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM. 

THERE  are  those  who  may  look  on  this  little  book  as 
very  radical,  in  the  bad  sense  they  attach  to  the 
word.  They  mistake.  This  is,  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  a  most  conservative  little  book.  I  do  not  appeal 
to  prejudice  and  passion.  I  appeal  to  intelligence.  I  do 
not  incite  to  strife ;  I  seek  to  prevent  strife. 

That  the  civilized  world  is  on  the  verge  of  the  most 
tremendous  struggle,  which,  according  to  the  frankness 
and  sagacity  with  which  it  is  met,  will  be  a  struggle  of 
ideas  or  a  struggle  of  actual  physical  force,  calling  upon 
all  the  potent  agencies  of  destruction  which  modern 
invention  has  discovered,  every  sign  of  the  times  portends. 
The  voices  that  proclaim  the  eve  of  revolution  are  in 
the  air.  Steam  and  electricity  are  not  merely  transport¬ 
ing  goods  and  carrying  messages.  They  are  everywhere 
changing  social  and  industrial  organization  j  they  are 
everywhere  stimulating  thought,  and  arousing  new  hopes 
and  fears  and  desires  and  passions ;  they  are  everywhere 
breaking  down  the  barriers  that  have  separated  men,  and 
integrating  nations  into  one  vast  organism,  through 
which  the  same  pulses  throb  and  the  same  nerves  tingle. 

The  present  situation  in  Great  Britain  is  full  of  dangers, 
of  dangers  graver  and  nearer  than  those  who  there  are 
making  history  are  likely  to  see.  Who  in  France,  a  cen¬ 
tury  ago,  foresaw  the  drama  of  blood  so  soon  to  open  ? 


98 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


Who  in  the  United  States  dreamed  of  what  was  coining 
till  the  cannon-shot  rang  and  the  hag  fell  on  Sumter? 
How  confidently  we  said,  “  The  American  people  are  too 
intelligent,  too  practical,  to  go  to  cutting  each  other’s 
throats”!  How  confidently  we  relied  upon  the  strong 
common  sense  of  the  great  masses,  upon  the  great  busi¬ 
ness  interests,  upon  the  universal  desire  to  make  money ! 
“War  does  not  pay,”  we  said,  “therefore  war  is  impos¬ 
sible.”  A  shot  rang  over  Charleston  harbor;  a  bit  of 
bunting  dropped,  and,  riven  into  two  hostile  camps,  a 
nation  sprang  to  its  feet  to  close  in  the  death-lock. 

And  to  just  such  a  point  are  events  hurrying  in  Great 
Britain  to-day.  History  repeats  itself,  and  what  happened 
a  century  ago  on  one  side  of  the  English  Channel  is 
beginning  again  on  the  other.  Already  has  the  States- 
General  met,  and  the  Third  Estate  put  on  their  hats. 
Already  Necker  is  in  despair.  Already  has  the  lit  de 
justice  been  held,  and  the  Tennis-Court  been  locked,  and 
ball-cartridge  been  served  to  the  Swiss  Guard!  For  the 
moment  the  forces  of  reaction  triumph.  Davitt  is  snatched 
to  prison;  a  “Liberal”  government  carries  coercion  by  a 
tremendous  majority,  and  the  most  despotic  powers  are 
invoked  to  make  possible  the  eviction  of  Irish  peasants. 
The  order  of  Warsaw  is  to  reign  in  Ireland,  and  the 
upholders  of  ancient  wrong  deem  it  secure  again,  as  the 
wave  that  was  mounting  seems  sweeping  back.  Let  them 
wait  a  little  and  they  will  see.  For  again  the  wave  lull 
mount,  and  higher  and  higher,  and  soon  the  white  foam 
will  seethe  and  hiss  on  its  toppling  crest.  It  is  not  true 
conservatism  which  cries  “  Peace  !  peace  !  ”  when  there  is 
no  peace ;  which,  like  the  ostrich,  sticks  its  head  in  the 
sand  and  fancies  itself  secure ;  which  would  compromise 
matters  by  putting  more  coal  in  the  furnace,  and  hanging 
heavier  weights  on  the  safety-valve !  That  alone  is  true 
conservatism  which  would  look  facts  in  the  face,  which 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM. 


99 


would  reconcile  opposing  forces  on  the  only  basis  on 
which  reconciliation  is  possible— that  of  justice. 

I  speak  again  of  Great  Britain,  but  I  speak  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  whole  modern  world.  The  true  nature  of 
the  inevitable  conflict  with  which  modern  civilization  is 
everywhere  beginning  to  throb,  can,  it  seems  to  me,  best 
be  seen  in  the  United  States,  and  in  the  newer  States  even 
more  clearly  than  in  the  older  States.  That  intelligent 
Englishmen  imagine  that  in  the  democratization  of  political 
institutions,  in  free  trade  in  land,  or  in  peasant  proprie¬ 
torship,  can  be  found  any  solution  of  the  difficulties  which 
are  confronting  them,  is  because  they  do  not  see  what 
may  be  seen  in  the  United  States  by  whoever  will  look. 
That  intelligent  Americans  imagine  that  by  these  ques¬ 
tions  which  are  so  menacingly  presenting  themselves  in 
Europe  their  peace  is  to  be  unvexed,  is  because  they  shut 
their  eyes  to  what  is  going  on  around  them,  because  they 
attribute  to  themselves  and  their  institutions  what  is  really 
due  to  conditions  now  rapidly  passing  away— to  the 
sparseness  of  population  and  the  cheapness  of  land.  Yet 
it  is  here,  in  this  American  Republic,  that  the  true  nature 
of  that  inevitable  conflict  now  rapidly  approaching  which 
must  determine  the  fate  of  modern  civilization  may  be 
most  clearly  seen. 

We  have  here  abolished  all  hereditary  privileges  and 
legal  distinctions  of  class.  Monarchy,  aristocracy,  prelacy, 
we  have  swept  them  all  away.  We  have  carried  mere 
political  democracy  to  its  ultimate.  Every  child  born  in 
the  United  States  may  aspire  to  be  President.  Every 
man,  even  though  he  be  a  tramp  or  a  pauper,  has  a  vote, 
and  one  man’s  vote  counts  for  as  much  as  any  other  man’s 
vote.  Before  the  law  all  citizens  are  absolutely  equal. 
In  the  name  of  the  people  all  laws  run.  They  are  the 
source  of  all  power,  the  fountain  of  all  honor.  In  their 
name  and  by  their  will  all  government  is  carried  on ;  the 


100 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


highest  officials  are  hut  their  servants.  Primogeniture 
and  entail  we  have  abolished  wherever  they  existed.  We 
have  and  have  had  free  trade  in  land.  We  started  with 
something  infinitely  better  than  any  scheme  of  peasant 
proprietorship  which  it  is  possible  to  carry  into  effect  in 
Great  Britain.  We  have  had  for  our  public  domain  the 
best  part  of  an  immense  continent.  We  have  had  the 
preemption  law  and  the  homestead  law.  It  has  been  our 
boast  that  here  every  one  who  wished  it  could  have  a 
farm.  We  have  had  full  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the 
press.  We  have  not  merely  common  schools,  but  high 
schools  and  universities,  open  to  all  who  may  choose  to 
attend.  Yet  here  the  same  social  difficulties  apparent  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  are  beginning  to  appear. 
It  is  already  clear  that  our  democracy  is  a  vain  pretense, 
our  make-believe  of  equality  a  sham  and  a  fraud. 

Already  are  the  sovereign  people  becoming  but  a  roi 
faineant ,  like  the  Merovingian  kings  of  France,  like  the 
Mikados  of  Japan.  The  shadow  of  power  is  theirs;  but 
the  substance  of  power  is  being  grasped  and  wielded  by 
the  bandit  chiefs  of  the  stock  exchange,  the  robber  leaders 
who  organize  politics  into  machines.  In  any  matter  in 
which  they  are  interested,  the  little  finger  of  the  great 
corporations  is  thicker  than  the  loins  of  the  people.  Is  it 
sovereign  States  or  is  it  railroad  corporations  that  are 
really  represented  in  the  elective  Senate  which  we  have 
substituted  for  an  hereditary  House  of  Lords?  Where 
is  the  count  or  marquis  or  duke  in  Europe  who  wields 
such  power  as  is  wielded  by  such  simple  citizens  as  our 
Stanfords,  Goulds,  and  Vanderbilts?  What  does  legal 
equality  amount  to,  when  the  fortunes  of  some  citizens 
can  be  estimated  only  in  hundreds  of  millions,  and  other 
citizens  have  nothing?  What  does  the  suffrage  amount 
to  when,  under  threat  of  discharge  from  employment, 
citizens  can  be  forced  to  vote  as  their  employers  dictate? 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM. 


101 


when  votes  can  be  bought  on  election  day  for  a  few  dol¬ 
lars  apiece  ?  If  there  are  citizens  so  dependent  that  they 
must  vote  as  their  employers  wish,  so  poor  that  a  few 
dollars  on  election  day  seem  to  them  more  than  any  higher 
consideration,  then  giving  them  votes  simply  adds  to  the 
political  power  of  wealth,  and  universal  suffrage  becomes 
the  surest  basis  for  the  establishment  of  tyranny.  u  Tyr¬ 
anny  ” !  There  is  a  lesson  in  the  very  word.  What  are 
our  American  bosses  but  the  exact  antitypes  of  the  Greek 
tyrants,  from  whom  the  word  comes?  They  who  gave 
the  word  tyrant  its  meaning  did  not  claim  to  rule  by 
right  divine.  They  were  simply  the  Grand  Sachems  of 
Greek  Tammanys,  the  organizers  of  Hellenic  “  stalwart 
machines/*’ 

Even  if  universal  history  did  not  teach  the  lesson,  it  is 
in  the  United  States  already  becoming  very  evident  that 
political  equality  can  continue  to  exist  only  upon  a  basis 
of  social  equality ;  that  where  the  disparity  in  the  distri¬ 
bution  of  wealth  increases,  political  democracy  only  makes 
easier  the  concentration  of  power,  and  must  inevitably 
lead  to  tyranny  and  anarchy.  And  it  is  already  evident 
that  there  is  nothing  in  political  democracy,  nothing  in 
popular  education,  nothing  in  any  of  our  American 
institutions,  to  prevent  the  most  enormous  disparity  in 
the  distribution  of  wealth.  Nowhere  in  the  world  are 
such  great  fortunes  growing  up  as  in  the  United  States. 
Considering  that  the  average  income  of  the  working 
masses  of  our  people  is  only  a  few  hundred  dollars  a  year, 
a  fortune  of  a  million  dollars  is  a  monstrous  thing— a 
more  monstrous  and  dangerous  thing  under  a  democratic 
government  than  anywhere  else.  Yet  fortunes  of  ten 
and  twelve  million  dollars  are  with  us  ceasing  to  be 
noticeable.  We  already  have  citizens  whose  wealth  can 
be  estimated  only  in  hundreds  of  millions,  and  before  the 
end  of  the  century,  if  present  tendencies  continue,  we  are 


102 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


likely  to  have  fortunes  estimated  in  thousands  of  millions 
— such  monstrous  fortunes  as  the  world  has  never  seen 
since  the  growth  of  similar  fortunes  ate  out  the  heart  of 
Rome.  And  the  necessary  correlative  of  the  growth  of 
such  fortunes  is  the  impoverishment  and  loss  of  indepen¬ 
dence  on  the  part  of  the  masses.  These  great  aggrega¬ 
tions  of  wealth  are  like  great  trees,  which  strike  deep 
roots  and  spread  wide  branches,  and  which,  by  sucking 
up  the  moisture  from  the  soil  and  intercepting  the  sun¬ 
shine,  stunt  and  kill  the  vegetation  around  them.  When 
a  capital  of  a  million  dollars  comes  into  competition  with 
capitals  of  thousands  of  dollars,  the  smaller  capitalists 
must  be  driven  out  of  the  business  or  destroyed.  With 
great  capital  nothing  can  compete  save  great  capital. 
Hence,  every  aggregation  of  wealth  increases  the  tendency 
to  the  aggregation  of  wealth,  and  decreases  the  possibility 
of  the  employee  ever  becoming  more  than  an  employee, 
compelling  him  to  compete  with  his  fellows  as  to  who 
will  work  cheapest  for  the  great  capitalist— a  competition 
that  can  have  but  one  result,  that  of  forcing  wages  to  the 
minimum  at  which  the  supply  of  labor  can  be  kept  up. 
Where  we  are  is  not  so  important  as  in  what  direction 
we  are  going,  and  in  the  United  States  all  tendencies  are 
clearly  in  this  direction.  Awhile  ago,  and  any  journey¬ 
man  shoemaker  could  set  up  in  business  for  himself  with 
the  savings  of  a  few  months.  But  now  the  operative 
shoemaker  could  not  in  a  lifetime  save  enough  from  his 
wages  to  go  into  business  for  himself.  And,  now  that 
great  capital  has  entered  agriculture,  it  must  be  with  the 
same  results.  The  large  farmer,  who  can  buy  the  latest 
machinery  at  the  lowest  cash  prices  and  use  it  to  the  best 
advantage,  who  can  run  a  straight  furrow  for  miles,  who 
can  make  special  rates  with  railroad  companies,  take 
advantage  of  the  market,  and  sell  in  large  lots  for  the 
least  commission,  must  drive  out  the  small  farmer  of  the 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM. 


103 


early  American  type  just  as  the  shoe  factory  has  driven 
out  the  journeyman  shoemaker.  And  this  is  going  on 
to-day. 

There  is  nothing  unnatural  in  this.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  in  the  highest  degree  natural.  Social  development  is 
in  accordance  with  certain  immutable  laws.  And  the  law 
of  development,  whether  it  be  the  development  of  a  solar 
system,  of  the  tiniest  organism,  or  of  a  human  society,  is 
the  law  of  integration.  It  is  in  obedience  to  this  law— a 
law  evidently  as  all-compelling  as  the  law  of  gravitation 
—that  these  new  agencies,  which  so  powerfully  stimulate 
social  growth,  tend  to  the  specialization  and  interdepen¬ 
dence  of  industry.  It  is  in  obedience  to  this  law  that  the 
factory  is  superseding  the  independent  mechanic,  the 
large  farm  is  swallowing  up  the  little  one,  the  big  store 
shutting  up  the  small  one,  that  corporations  are  arising 
that  dwarf  the  State,  and  that  population  tends  more  and 
more  to  concentrate  in  cities.  Men  must  work  together  in 
larger  and  in  more  closely  related  groups.  Production 
must  be  on  a  greater  scale.  The  only  question  is,  whether 
the  relation  in  which  men  are  thus  drawn  together  and 
compelled  to  act  together  shall  be  the  natural  relation 
of  interdependence  in  equality,  or  the  unnatural  relation 
of  dependence  upon  a  master.  If  the  one,  then  may 
civilization  advance  in  what  is  evidently  the  natural 
order,  each  step  leading  to  a  higher  step.  If  the  other, 
then  what  Nature  has  intended  as  a  blessing  becomes  a 
curse,  and  a  condition  of  inequality  is  produced  which 
will  inevitably  destroy  civilization.  Every  new  invention 
but  hastens  the  catastrophe. 

Now,  all  this  we  may  deduce  from  natural  laws  as  fixed 
and  certain  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  And  all  this  we 
may  see  going  on  to-day.  This  is  the  reason  why  modern 
progress,  great  as  it  has  been,  fails  to  relieve  poverty; 
this  is  the  secret  of  the  increasing  discontent  which  per- 


104 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


vades  every  civilized  country.  Under  present  conditions, 
with  land  treated  as  private  property,  material  progress 
is  developing  two  diverse  tendencies,  two  opposing  cur¬ 
rents.  On  the  one  side,  the  tendency  of  increasing  popu¬ 
lation  and  of  all  improvement  in  the  arts  of  production 
is  to  build  up  enormous  fortunes,  to  wipe  out  the  inter¬ 
mediate  classes,  and  to  crowd  down  the  masses  to  a  level 
of  lower  wages  and  greater  dependence.  On  the  other 
hand,  by  bringing  men  closer  together,  by  stimulating 
thought,  by  creating  new  wants,  by  arousing  new  ambi¬ 
tions,  the  tendency  of  modern  progress  is  to  make  the 
masses  discontented  with  their  condition,  to  feel  bitterly 
its  injustice.  The  result  can  be  predicted  just  as  certainly 
as  the  result  can  be  predicted  when  two  trains  are  rushing 
toward  each  other  on  the  same  track. 

This  thing  is  absolutely  certain :  Private  property  in 
land  blocks  the  way  of  advancing  civilization.  The  two 
cannot  long  coexist.  Either  private  property  in  land  must 
be  abolished,  or,  as  has  happened  again  and  again  in  the 
history  of  mankind,  civilization  must  again  turn  back  in 
anarchy  and  bloodshed.  Let  the  remaining  years  of  the 
nineteenth  century  bear  me  witness.  Even  now,  I  believe, 
the  inevitable  struggle  has  begun.  It  is  not  conservatism 
which  would  ignore  such  a  tremendous  fact.  It  is  the 
blindness  that  invites  destruction.  He  that  is  truly  con¬ 
servative  let  him  look  the  facts  in  the  face ;  let  him  speak 
frankly  and  dispassionately.  This  is  the  duty  of  the  hour. 
For,  when  a  great  social  question  presses  for  settlement, 
it  is  only  for  a  little  while  that  the  voice  of  Reason  can 
be  heard.  The  masses  of  men  hardly  think  at  any  time. 
It  is  difficult  even  in  sober  moments  to  get  them  to  reason 
calmly.  But  when  passion  is  roused,  then  they  are  like  a 
herd  of  stampeded  bulls.  I  do  not  fear  that  present  social 
adjustments  can  continue.  That  is  impossible.  What  I 
fear  is  that  the  dams  may  hold  till  the  flood  rises  to  fury. 


TRUE  CONSERVATISM. 


105 


What  I  fear  is  that  dogged  resistance  on  the  one  side  may 
kindle  a  passionate  sense  of  wrong  on  the  other.  What 
I  fear  are  the  demagogues  and  the  accidents. 

The  present  condition  of  all  civilized  countries  is  that 
of  increasing  unstable  equilibrium.  In  steam  and  elec¬ 
tricity,  and  all  the  countless  inventions  which  they  typify, 
mighty  forces  have  entered  the  world.  If  rightly  used, 
they  are  our  servants,  more  potent  to  do  our  bidding 
than  the  genii  of  Arabian  story.  If  wrrongly  used,  they, 
too,  must  turn  to  monsters  of  destruction.  They  require 
and  will  compel  great  social  changes.  That  we  may 
already  see.  Operating  under  social  institutions  which 
are  based  on  natural  justice,  which  acknowledge  the  equal 
rights  of  all  to  the  material  and  opportunities  of  nature, 
their  elevating  power  will  be  equally  exerted,  and  indus¬ 
trial  organization  will  pass  naturally  into  that  of  a  vast 
cooperative  society.  Operating  under  social  institutions 
which  deny  natural  justice  by  treating  land  as  private 
property,  their  power  is  unequally  exerted,  and  tends,  by 
producing  inequality,  to  engender  forces  that  will  tear  and 
rend  and  shatter.  The  old  bottles  cannot  hold  the  new 
wine.  This  is  the  ferment  which  throughout  the  civilized 
world  is  everywhere  beginning. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


IN  HOC  SIGNO  VINCES. 

IET  me  recapitulate. 

A  What  I  want  to  impress  upon  those  who  may  read 
this  book  is  this  : 

The  land  question  is  nowhere  a  mere  local  question ;  it 
is  a  universal  question.  It  involves  the  great  problem  of 
the  distribution  of  wealth,  which  is  everywhere  forcing 
itself  npon  attention. 

It  cannot  be  settled  by  measures  which  in  their  nature 
can  have  but  local  application.  It  can  be  settled  only  by 
measures  which  in  their  nature  will  apply  everywhere. 

It  cannot  be  settled  by  half-way  measures.  It  can  be 
settled  only  by  the  acknowledgment  of  equal  rights  to 
land.  Upon  this  basis  it  can  be  settled  easily  and  per- 
manentlv. 

c/ 

If  the  Irish  reformers  take  this  ground,  they  will  make 
their  fight  the  common  fight  of  all  the  peoples ;  they  will 
concentrate  strength  and  divide  opposition.  They  will 
turn  the  flank  of  the  system  that  oppresses  them,  and 
awake  the  struggle  in  its  very  intrenchments.  They  will 
rouse  against  it  a  force  that  is  like  the  force  of  rising 
tides. 

What  I  urge  the  men  of  Ireland  to  do  is  to  proclaim, 
without  limitation  or  evasion,  that  the  land,  of  natural 
right,  is  the  common  property  of  the  whole  people,  and 


IN  HOC  SIGrNO  VINCES. 


107 


to  propose  practical  measures  which  will  recognize  this 
right  in  all  countries  as  well  as  in  Ireland. 

What  I  urge  the  Land  Leagues  of  the  United  States  to 
do  is  to  announce  this  great  principle  as  of  universal  appli¬ 
cation  ;  to  give  their  movement  a  reference  to  America  as 
well  as  to  Ireland ;  to  broaden  and  deepen  and  strengthen 
it  by  making  it  a  movement  for  the  regeneration  of  the 
world — a  movement  which  shall  concentrate  and  give 
shape  to  aspirations  that  are  stirring  among  all  nations. 

Ask  not  for  Ireland  mere  charity  or  sympathy.  Let 
her  call  be  the  call  of  fraternity:  “ For  yourselves,  O 
brothers,  as  well  as  for  us  !  ”  Let  her  rallying  cry  awake 
all  who  slumber,  and  rouse  to  a  common  struggle  all  who 
are  oppressed.  Let  it  breathe  not  old  hates;  let  it  ring 
and  echo  with  the  new  hope ! 

In  many  lands  her  sons  are  true  to  her;  under  many 
skies  her  daughters  burn  with  the  love  of  her.  Lo !  the 
ages  bring  their  opportunity.  Let  those  wdio  would  honor 
her  bear  her  banner  to  the  front ! 

The  harp  and  the  shamrock,  the  golden  sunburst  on 
the  field  of  living  green !  emblems  of  a  country  without 
nationality ;  standard  of  a  people  downtrodden  and 
oppressed !  The  hour  has  come  when  they  may  lead 
the  van  of  the  great  world-struggle.  Types  of  harmony 
and  of  ever-spriuging  hope,  of  light  and  of  life  !  The 
hour  has  come  when  they  may  stand  for  something  higher 
than  local  patriotism ;  something  grander  than  national 
independence.  The  hour  has  come  when  they  may  stand 
forth  to  speak  the  world’s  hope,  to  lead  the  world’s 
advance ! 

Torn  away  by  pirates,  tending  in  a  strange  land  a 
heathen  master’s  swine,  the  slave  boy,  with  the  spirit  of 
Christ  in  his  heart,  praying  in  the  snow  for  those  who 
had  enslaved  him,  and  returning  to  bring  to  his  oppressors 
the  message  of  the  gospel,  returning  with  good  to  give 


108 


THE  LAND  QUESTION. 


where  evil  had  been  received,  to  kindle  in  the  darkness  a 
great  light— this  is  Ireland’s  patron  saint.  In  his  spirit 
let  Ireland’s  struggle  be.  Not  merely  through  Irish  vales 
and  hamlets,  but  into  England,  into  Scotland,  into  Wales, 
wherever  our  common  tongue  is  spoken,  let  the  torch  be 
carried  and  the  word  be  preached.  And  beyond !  The 
brotherhood  of  man  stops  not  with  d  fferences  of  speech 
any  more  than  with  seas  or  mountain-chains.  A  century 
ago  it  was  ours  to  speak  the  ringing  word.  Then  it  was 
France’s.  Now  it  may  be  Ireland’s,  if  her  sons  be  true. 

But  wherever,  or  by  whom,  the  word  must  be  spoken, 
the  standard  will  be  raised.  No  matter  what  the  Irish 
leaders  do  or  do  not  do,  it  is  too  la,te  to  settle  permanently 
the  question  on  any  basis  short  of  the  recognition  of 
equal  natural  right.  And,  whether  the  Land  Leagues 
move  forward  or  slink  back,  the  agitation  must  spread  to 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  Republic,  the  true  Republic, 
is  not  yet  here.  But  her  birth-struggle  must  soon  begin. 
Already,  with  the  hope  of  her,  men’s  thoughts  are  stirring. 

Not  a  republic  of  landlords  and  peasants ;  not  a  republic 
of  millionaires  and  tramps ;  not  a  republic  in  which  some 
are  masters  and  some  serve.  But  a  republic  of  equal 
citizens,  where  competition  becomes  cooperation,  and  the 
interdependence  of  all  gives  true  independence  to  each ; 
where  moral  progress  goes  hand  in  hand  with  intellectual 
progress,  and  material  progress  elevates  and  enfranchises 
even  the  poorest  and  weakest  and  lowliest. 

And  the  gospel  of  deliverance,  let  us  not  forget  it :  it  is 
the  gospel  of  love,  not  of  hate.  He  whom  it  emancipates 
will  know  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  nor  Irishman  nor 

• r 

Englishman,  nor  German  nor  Frenchman,  nor  European 
nor  American,  nor  difference  of  color  or  of  race,  nor 
animosities  of  class  or  condition.  Let  us  set  our  feet  on 
old  prejudices,  let  us  bury  the  old  hates.  There  have 


IN  HOC  SIGNO  VINCES. 


109 


been  “Holy  Alliances”  of  kings.  Let  us  strive  for  the 
Holy  Alliance  of  the  people. 

Liberty,  equality,  fraternity !  Write  them  on  the  ban¬ 
ners.  Let  them  be  for  sign  and  countersign.  Without 
equality,  liberty  cannot  be;  without  fraternity,  neither 
equality  nor  liberty  can  be  achieved. 

Liberty— the  full  freedom  of  each  bounded  only  by  the 
equal  freedom  of  every  other ! 

Equality— the  equal  right  of  each  to  the  use  and  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  all  natural  opportunities,  to  all  the  essentials  of 
happy,  healthful,  human  life  ! 

Fraternity— that  sjunpathy  which  links  together  those 
who  struggle  in  a  noble  cause ;  that  would  live  and  let 
live ;  that  would  help  as  well  as  be  helped ;  that,  in  seeking 
the  good  of  all,  finds  the  highest  good  of  each ! 

“  By  this  sign  shall  ye  conquer !  ” 

u  We  hold  these  truths  to  he  self-evident — that  all  men  are 
created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  hy  their  Creator  with 
certain  unalienable  rights  ;  that  among  these  are  life ,  liberty , 
and  the  'pursuit  of  happiness ! v 

It  is  over  a  century  since  these  words  rang  out.  It  is 
time  to  give  them  their  full,  true  meaning.  Let  the 
standard  be  lifted  that  all  may  see  it ;  let  the  advance  be 
sounded  that  all  may  hear  it.  Let  those  who  would  fall 
back,  fall  back.  Let  those  who  would  oppose,  oppose. 
Everywhere  are  those  who  will  rally.  The  stars  in  their 
courses  fight  against  Sisera  ! 

Henry  George. 

New  York,  February  28,  1881. 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND 


A  PASSAGE-AT-ARMS 

BETWEEN  THE 

DUKE  OF  ARGYLL  AND  HENRY  GEORGE 


I 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTE. 


The  literary  reputation  and  the  high  social  and  political 
rank  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll  have  attracted  unusual  atten¬ 
tion  to  his  arraignment  of  Henry  George’s  doctrine  as  to 
property  in  land.  Mr.  George  has  made  a  vigorous  and 
aggressive  reply,  which  is  here  given  in  juxtaposition  with 
the  Duke’s  attack.  This  passage-at-arms  triply  challenges 
attention  because  of  the  burning  interest  in  the  question 
itself  at  present,  the  representative  character  of  the  dis¬ 
putants,  and  the  dialectic  skill  with  which  the  controversy 
is  conducted. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


I.  The  Prophet  of  San  Francisco . 7 

By  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  April, 
1884. 

•II.  The  “Reduction  to  Iniquity ” . 41 

By  Henry  George,  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  July, 
1884. 


' 


. 


*  • 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


I. 

THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 

BY  THE  DUKE  OF  ARGYLL. 

THERE  are  some  advantages  in  being  a  citizen— even 
a  very  humble  citizen— in  the  Republic  of  Letters. 
If  any  man  has  ever  written  anything  on  matters  of  seri¬ 
ous  concern,  which  others  have  read  with  interest,  he  will 
very  soon  find  himself  in  contact  with  curious  diversities 
of  mind.  Subtle  sources  of  sympathy  will  open  up  before 
him  in  contrast  with  sources,  not  less  subtle,  of  antipathy, 
and  both  of  them  are  often  interesting  and  instructive  in 
the  highest  degree. 

A  good  many  years  ago  a  friend  of  mine,  whose  opinion 
I  greatly  value,  was  kind  enough  to  tell  me  of  his  approval 
of  a  little  book  which  I  had  then  lately  published.  As  he 
was  a  man  of  pure  taste,  and  naturally  much  more  inclined 
to  criticism  than  assent,  his  approval  gave  me  pleasure. 
But  being  a  man  also  very  honest  and  outspoken,  he  took 
care  to  explain  that  his  approval  was  not  unqualified.  He 
liked  the  whole  book  except  one  chapter,  u  in  which,”  he 
added,  u  it  seems  to  me  there  is  a  good  deal  of  nonsense.” 

There  was  no  need  to  ask  him  what  that  chapter  was. 
I  knew  it  very  well.  It  could  be  none  other  than  a  chapter 


8 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


called  “  Law  in  Politics/’  which  was  devoted  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  how  far,  in  human  conduct  and  affairs,  we  can  trace 
the  Reign  of  Law  in  the  same  sense,  or  in  a  sense  very 
closely  analogous  to  that  in  which  we  can  trace  it  in  the 
physical  sciences.  There  were  several  things  in  that 
chapter  which  my  friend  was  not  predisposed  to  like.  In 
the  first  place,  he  was  an  active  politician,  and  such  men 
are  sure  to  feel  the  reasoning  to  be  unnatural  and  unjust 
which  tends  to  represent  all  the  activities  of  their  life  as 
more  or  less  the  results  of  circumstance.  In  the  second 
place,  he  was  above  all  other  things  a  Free  Trader,  and 
the  governing  idea  of  that  school  is  that  every  attempt  to 
interfere  by  law  with  anything  connected  with  trade  or 
manufacture  is  a  folly  if  not  a  crime.  Now,  one  main 
object  of  my  “ nonsense”  chapter  was  to  show  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  true  as  an  absolute  proposition.  It  drew 
a  line  between  two  provinces  of  legislation,  in  one  of  which 
such  interference  had  indeed  been  proved  to  be  mischie¬ 
vous,  but  in  the  other  of  which  interference  had  been 
equally  proved  to  be  absolutely  required.  Protection,  it 
was  shown,  had  been  found  to  be  wrong  in  all  attempts  to 
regulate  the  value  or  the  price  of  anything.  But  Protec¬ 
tion,  it  was  also  shown,  had  been  found  to  be  right  and 
necessary  in  defending  the  interests  of  life,  health,  and 
morals.  As  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  it  was  pointed  out 
that  during  the  present  century  there  had  been  two  steady 
movements  on  the  part  of  Parliament— one  a  movement 
of  retreat,  the  other  a  movement  of  advance.  Step  by 
step  legislation  had  been  abandoned  in  all  endeavors  to 
regulate  interests  purely  economic ;  while,  step  by  step, 
not  less  steadily,  legislation  had  been  adopted  more  and 
more  extensively  for  the  regulation  of  matters  in  which 
those  higher  interests  were  concerned.  Moreover,  I  had 
ventured  to  represent  both  these  movements  as  equally 
important— the  movement  in  favor  of  Protection  in  one 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


9 


direction  being  quite  as  valuable  as  the  movement  against 
Protection  in  another  direction.  It  was  not  in  the  nature 
of  things  that  my  friend  should  admit  this  equality,  or 
even  any  approach  to  a  comparison  between  the  two 
movements.  In  promoting  one  of  them  he  had  spent  his 
life,  and  the  truths  it  represented  were  to  him  the  subject 
of  passionate  conviction.  Of  the  other  movement  he  had 
been  at  best  only  a  passive  spectator,  or  had  followed  its 
steps  with  cold  and  critical  toleration.  To  place  them  on 
anything  like  the  same  level  as  steps  of  advance  in  the 
science  of  government,  could  not  but  appear  to  him  as  a 
proposition  involving  “a  good  deal  of  nonsense.”  But 
critics  may  themselves  be  criticized  j  and  sometimes  authors 
are  in  the  happy  position  of  seeing  behind  both  the  praise 
and  the  blame  they  get.  In  this  case  I  am  unrepentant. 
I  am  firmly  convinced  that  the  social  and  political  value 
of  the  principle  which  has  led  to  the  repeal  of  all  laws  for 
the  regulation  of  price  is  not  greater  than  the  value  of  the 
principle  which  has  led  to  the  enactment  of  many  laws 
for  the  regulation  of  labor.  If  the  Factory  Acts  and 
many  others  of  the  like  kind  had  not  been  passed  we 
should  for  many  years  have  been  hearing  a  hundred 
“bitter  cries”  for  every  one  which  assails  us  now,  and  the 
social  problems  which  still  confront  us  would  have  been 
much  more  difficult  and  dangerous  than  they  are. 

Certain  it  is  that  if  the  train  of  thought  which  led  up 
to  this  conclusion  was  distasteful  to  some  minds,  it  turned 
out  to  be  eminently  attractive  to  many  others.  And  of 
this,  some  years  later,  I  had  a  curious  proof.  From  the 
other  side  of  the  world,  and  from  a  perfect  stranger,  there 
came  a  courteous  letter  accompanied  by  the  present  of  a 
book.  The  author  had  read  mine,  and  he  sent  his  own. 
In  spite  of  prepossessions,  he  had  confidence  in  a  candid 
hearing.  The  letter  was  from  Mr.  Henry  George,  and 
the  book  was  “  Progress  and  Poverty.”  Both  were  then 


10 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


unknown  to  fame  3  nor  was  it  possible  for  me  fully  to 
appreciate  the  compliment  conveyed  until  I  found  that 
the  book  was  directed  to  prove  that  almost  all  the  evils 
of  humanity  are  to  be  traced  to  the  very  existence  of 
landowners,  and  that  by  divine  right  land  could  only 
belong  to  everybody  in  general  and  to  nobody  in  particular. 

The  credit  of  being  open  to  conviction  is  a  great  credit, 
and  even  the  heaviest  drafts  upon  it  cannot  well  be  made 
the  subject  of  complaint.  And  so  I  could  not  be  otherwise 
than  flattered  when  this  appeal  in  the  sphere  of  politics 
was  followed  by  another  in  the  sphere  of  science.  Another 
author  was  good  enough  to  present  me  with  his  book  •  and 
I  found  that  it  was  directed  to  prove  that  all  the  errors 
of  modern  physical  philosophy  arise  from  the  prevalent 
belief  that  our  planet  is  a  globe.  In  reality  it  is  flat. 
Elaborate  chapters  and  equally  elaborate  diagrams  are 
devoted  to  the  proof.  At  first  I  thought  that  the  argu¬ 
ment  was  a  joke,  like  Archbishop  Whately’s  ‘‘Historic 
Doubts.”  But  I  soon  saw  that  the  author  was  quite  as 
earnest  as  Mr.  Henry  George.  Lately  I  have  seen  that 
both  these  authors  have  been  addressing  public  meetings 
with  great  success  5  and  considering  that  all  obvious 
appearances  and  the  language  of  common  life  are  against 
the  accepted  doctrine  of  Copernicus,  it  is  perhaps  not 
surprising  that  the  popular  audiences  which  have  listened 
to  the  two  reformers  have  evidently  been  almost  as  incom¬ 
petent  to  detect  the  blunders  of  the  one  as  to  see  through 
the  logical  fallacies  of  the  other.  But  the  Californian 
philosopher  has  one  immense  advantage.  Nobody  has  any 
personal  interest  in  believing  that  the  world  is  flat.  But 
many  persons  may  have  an  interest,  very  personal  indeed, 
in  believing  that  they  have  a  right  to  appropriate  a  share 
in  their  neighbor’s  vineyard. 

There  are,  at  least,  a  few  axioms  in  life  on  which  we 
are  entitled  to  decline  discussion.  Even  the  most  skeptical 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


11 


minds  have  done  so.  The  mind  of  Voltaire  was  certainly 
not  disposed  to  accept  without  question  any  of  the  beliefs 
that  underlay  the  rotten  political  system  which  he  saw  and 
hated.  He  was  one  of  those  who  assailed  it  with  every 
weapon,  and  who  ultimately  overthrew  it.  Among  his 
fellows  in  that  work  there  was  a  perfect  revelry  of  rebel¬ 
lion  and  of  unbelief.  In  the  grotesque  procession  of  new 
opinions  which  had  begun  to  pass  across  the  stage  while 
he  was  still  upon  it,  this  particular  opinion  against  prop¬ 
erty  in  land  had  been  advocated  by  the  famous  “Jean 
Jacques.”  Voltaire  turned  his  powerful  glance  upon  it, 
and  this  is  how  he  treated  it 

B.  Avez-vous  oublie  que  Jean-Jacques,  un  des  p&res  de  Plilglise 
Moderne,  a  dit,  que  le  premier  qui  osa  clore  et  cultiver  un  terrain 
fut  l’ennemi  du  genre  humain,  qu’il  fallait  l’exterminer,  et  que  les 
fruits  sont  a  tous,  et  que  la  terre  n'est  a  personne  ?  N’avons-nous 
pas  deja  examine  ensemble  cette  belle  proposition  si  utile  a  la  So¬ 
ciety? 

A.  Quel  est  ce  Jean-Jacques?  II  faut  que  ce  soit  quelque  Hun, 
bel  esprit,  qui  ait  ecrit  cette  impertinence  abominable,  ou  quelque 
mauvais  plaisant,  buffo  magro,  qui  ait  voulu  rire  de  ce  que  le  monde 
entier  a  de  plus  serieux.  .  .  . 

For  my  own  part,  however,  I  confess  that  the  mocking 
spirit  of  Voltaire  is  not  the  spirit  in  which  I  am  ever 
tempted  to  look  at  the  fallacies  of  Communism.  Apart 
altogether  from  the  appeal  which  was  made  to  me  by  this 
author,  I  have  always  felt  the  high  interest  which  belongs 
to  those  fallacies,  because  of  the  protean  forms  in  which 
they  tend  to  revive  and  reappear,  and  because  of  the  call 
they  make  upon  us  from  time  to  time  to  examine  and 
identify  the  fundamental  facts  which  do  really  govern 
the  condition  of  mankind.  Never,  perhaps,  have  commu¬ 
nistic  theories  assumed  a  form  more  curious,  or  lent 


*  Dictionnaire  Pliilosophique,  1764,  art.  “Loi  Naturelle.” 


12 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


themselves  to  more  fruitful  processes  of  analysis,  than  in 
the  writings  of  Mr.  Henry  George.  These  writings  now 
include  a  volume  on  “  Social  Problems,”  published  recently. 
It  represents  the  same  ideas  as  those  which  inspire  the 
work  on  “  Progress  and  Poverty.”  They  are  often  "ex¬ 
pressed  in  almost  the  same  words,  but  they  exhibit  some 
development  and  applications  which  are  of  high  interest 
and  importance.  In  this  paper  I  shall  refer  to  both,  but  for 
the  present  I  can  do  no  more  than  group  together  some  of 
the  more  prominent  features  of  this  new  political  philosophy. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  to  find 
one  of  the  most  extreme  doctrines  of  Communism  advo¬ 
cated  by  a  man  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  We 
have  been  accustomed  to  associate  that  country  with 
boundless  resources  and  an  almost  inexhaustible  future. 
It  has  been  for  two  centuries,  and  it  still  is,  the  land  of 
refuge  and  the  land  of  promise  to  millions  of  the  human 
race.  And  among  all  the  States  which  are  there  u  united,” 
those  which  occupy  the  Far  West  are  credited  with  the 
largest  share  in  this  abundant  present,  and  this  still  more 
abundant  future.  Yet  it  is  out  of  these  United  States, 
and  out  of  the  one  State  which,  perhaps,  above  all  others, 
has  this  fame  of  opulence,  that  we  have  a  solitary  voice, 
prophesying  a  future  of  intolerable  woes.  •  He  declares 
that  all  the  miseries  of  the  Old  World  are  already  firmly 
established  in  the  New.  He  declares  that  they  are  increas¬ 
ing  in  an  ever-accelerating  ratio,  growing  with  the  growth 
of  the  people,  and  strengthening  with  its  apparent  strength. 
He  tells  us  of  crowded  cities,  of  pestilential  rooms,  of  men 
and  women  struggling  for  employments  however  mean, 
of  the  breathlessness  of  competition,  of  the  extremes  of 
poverty  and  of  wealth— in  short,  of  all  the  inequalities 
of  condition,  of  all  the  pressures  and  suffocations  which 
accompany  the  struggle  for  existence  in  the  oldest  and 
most  crowded  societies  in  the  world. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


13 


I  do  not  pretend  to  accept  this  picture  as  an  accurate 
representation  of  the  truth.  At  the  best  it  is  a  picture 
only  of  the  darkest  shadows  with  a  complete  omission  of 
the  lights.  The  author  is  above  all  things  a  Pessimist, 
and  he  is  under  obvious  temptations  to  adopt  this  kind  of 
coloring.  He  has  a  theory  of  his  own  as  to  the  only 
remedy  for  all  the  evils  of  humanity ;  and  this  remedy  he 
knows  to  be  regarded  with  aversion  both  by  the  intellect 
and  by  the  conscience  of  his  countrymen.  He  can  only 
hope  for  success  by  trying  to  convince  Society  that  it  is 
in  the  grasp  of  some  deadly  malady.  Large  allowance 
must  be  made  for  this  temptation.  Still,  after  making 
every  allowance,  it  remains  a  most  remarkable  fact  that 
such  a  picture  can  be  drawn  by  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  at  least  as 
regards  many  of  the  great  cities  of  the  Union,  it  is  quite 
as  true  a  picture  of  them  as  it  would  be  of  the  great  cities 
of  Europe.  And  even  as  regards  the  population  of  the 
States  as  a  whole,  other  observers  have  reported  on  the 
feverish  atmosphere  which  accompanies  its  eager  pursuit 
of  wealth,  and  on  the  strain  which  is  everywhere  manifest 
for  the  attainment  of  standards  of  living  and  of  enjoyment 
which  are  never  reached  except  by  a  very  few.  So  far, 
at  least,  we  may  accept  Mr.  George’s  representations  as 
borne  out  by  independent  evidence. 

But  here  we  encounter  another  most  remarkable  cir¬ 
cumstance  in  Mr.  George’s  books.  The  man  who  gives 
this  dark— this  almost  black— picture  of  the  tendencies  of 
American  progress,  is  the  same  man  who  rejects  with 
indignation  the  doctrine  that  population  does  everywhere 
tend  to  press  in  the  same  way  upon  the  limits  of  subsis¬ 
tence.  This,  as  is  well  known,  is  the  general  proposition 
which  is  historically  connected  with  the  name  of  Malthus, 
although  other  writers  before  him  had  unconsciously  felt 
and  assumed  its  truth.  Since  his  time  it  has  been  almost 


14 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


universally  admitted  not  as  a  theory  but  as  a  fact,  and  one 
of  the  most  clearly  ascertained  of  all  the  facts  of  economic 
science.  But,  like  all  Communists,  Mr.  George  hates  the 
very  name  of  Malthus.  He  admits  and  even  exaggerates 
the  fact  of  pressure  as  applicable  to  the  people  of  America. 
He  admits  it  as  applicable  to  the  people  of  Europe,  and  of 
India,  and  of  China.  He  admits  it  as  a  fact  as  applicable 
more  or  less  obviously  to  every  existing  population  of  the 
globe.  But  he  will  not  allow  the  fact  to  be  generalized 
into  a  law.  He  will  not  allow  this— because  the  generali¬ 
zation  suggests  a  cause  which  he  denies,  and  shuts  out 
another  cause  which  he  asserts.  But  this  is  not  a  legiti¬ 
mate  reason  for  refusing  to  express  phenomena  in  terms 
as  wide  and  general  as  their  actual  occurrence.  Never 
mind  causes  until  we  have  clearly  ascertained  facts ;  but 
when  these  are  clearly  ascertained  let  us  record  them 
fearlessly  in  terms  as  wide  as  the  truth  demands.  If 
there  is  not  a  single  population  on  the  globe  which  does 
not  exhibit  the  fact  of  pressure  more  or  less  severe  on  the 
limits  of  their  actual  subsistence,  let  us  at  least  recognize 
this  fact  in  all  its  breadth  and  sweep.  The  diversities  of 
laws  and  institutions,  of  habits  and  of  manners,  are 
almost  infinite.  Yet  amid  all  these  diversities  this  one 
fact  is  universal.  Mr.  George  himself  is  the  latest  witness. 
He  sees  it  to  be  a  fact— a  terrible  and  alarming  fact,  in 
his  opinion— as  applicable  to  the  young  and  hopeful 
society  of  the  New  World.  In  a  country  where  there  is 
no  monarch,  no  aristocracy,  no  ancient  families,  no  entails 
of  land,  no  standing  armies  worthy  of  the  name,  no  pen¬ 
sions,  no  courtiers,  where  all  are  absolutely  equal  before 
the  law,  there,  even  there— in  this  paradise  of  Democracy, 
Mr.  George  tells  us  that  the  pressure  of  the  masses  upon 
the  means  of  living  and  enjoyment  which  are  open  to 
them  is  becoming  more  and  more  severe,  and  that  the 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


15 


inequalities  of  men  are  becoming  as  wide  and  glaring  as 
in  the  oldest  societies  of  Asia  and  of  Europe. 

The  contrast  between  this  wonderful  confirmation  of 
Malthusian  facts,  and  the  vehement  denunciation  of  Mal¬ 
thusian  u  law/’  is  surely  one  of  the  curiosities  of  literature. 
But  the  explanation  is  clear  enough.  Mr.  George  sees 
that  facts  common  to  so  many  nations  must  be  due  to 
some  cause  as  common  as  the  result.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  would  not  suit  his  theory  to  admit  that  this  cause 
can  possibly  be  anything  inherent  in  the  constitution  of 
Man,  or  in  the  natural  System  under  which  he  lives. 
From  this  region,  therefore,  he  steadily  averts  his  face. 
There  are  a  good  many  other  facts  in  human  nature  and 
in  human  conditions  that  have  this  common  and  universal 
'character.  There  are  a  number  of  such  facts  connected 
with  the  mind,  another  number  connected  with  the  body, 
and  still  another  number  connected  with  the  opportunities 
of  men.  But  all  of  these  Mr.  George  passes  over— in  order 
that  he  may  fix  attention  upon  one  solitary  fact— namely, 
that  in  all  nations  individual  men,  and  individual  commu¬ 
nities  of  men,  have  hitherto  been  allowed  to  acquire  bits 
of  land  and  to  deal  with  them  as  their  own. 

The  distinction  between  Natural  Law  and  Positive 
Institution  is  indeed  a  distinction  not  to  be  neglected. 
But  it  is  one  of  the  very  deepest  subjects  in  all  philosophy, 
and  there  are  many  indications  that  Mr.  George  has  dipped 
into  its  abysmal  waters  with  the  very  shortest  of  sounding¬ 
lines.  Human  laws  are  evolyed  out  of  human  instincts, 
and  these  are  among  the  gifts  of  nature.  Reason  may 
pervert  them,  and  Reason  is  all  the  more  apt  to  do  so 
when  it  begins  to  spin  logical  webs  out  of  its  own  bowels. 
But  it  may  be  safely  said  that  in  direct  proportion  as 
human  laws,  and  the  accepted  ideas  on  which  they  rest, 
are  really  universal,  in  that  same  proportion  they  have  a 


16 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


claim  to  be  regarded  as  really  natural,  and  as  the  legiti¬ 
mate  expression  of  fundamental  truths.  Sometimes  the 
very  men  who  set  up  as  reformers  against  such  laws,  and 
denounce  as  “  stupid  even  the  greatest  nations  which 
have  abided  by  them,  are  themselves  unconsciously  subject 
to  the  same  ideas,  and  are  only  working  out  of  them  some 
perverted  application. 

For  here,  again,  we  come  upon  another  wonderful  cir¬ 
cumstance  affecting  Mr.  George’s  writings.  I  have  spoken 
of  Mr.  George  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  also 
as  a  citizen  of  the  particular  State  of  California.  In  this 
latter  capacity,  as  the  citizen  of  a  democratic  government, 
he  is  a  member  of  that  government,  which  is  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  whole  people.  Now,  what  is  the  most  striking 
feature  about  the  power  claimed  by  that  government,  and 
actually  exercised  by  it  every  day?  It  is  the  power  of 
excluding  the  whole  human  race  absolutely,  except  on  its 
own  conditions,  from  a  large  portion  of  the  earth’s  surface 
—a  portion  so  large  that  it  embraces  no  less  than  ninety- 
nine  millions  of  acres,  or  156,000  square  miles  of  plain  and 
valley,  of  mountain  and  of  hill,  of  lake  and  river,  and  of 
estuaries  of  the  sea.  Yet  the  community  which  claims 
and  exercises  this  exclusive  ownership  over  this  enormous 
territory  is,  as  compared  with  its  extent,  a  mere  handful 
of  men.  The  whole  population  of  the  State  of  California 
represents  only  the  fractional  number  of  5.5  to  the  square 
mile.  It  is  less  than  one-quarter  of  the  population  of 
London.  If  the  whole  of  it  could  be  collected  into  one 
place  they  would  hardly  make  a  black  spot  in  the  enormous 
landscape  if  it  were  swept  by  a  telescope.  Such  is  the 
little  company  of  men  which  claims  to  own  absolutely  and 
exclusively  this  enormous  territory.  Yet  it  is  a  member 

*  This  is  the  epithet  applied  by  Mr.  George  to  the  English  people, 
because  they  will  persist  in  allowing  what  all  other  nations  have 
equally  allowed. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


17 


of  this  community  who  goes  about  the  world  preaching 
the  doctrine,  as  a  doctrine  of  divine  right,  that  land  is  to 
be  as  free  as  the  atmosphere,  which  is  the  common  prop¬ 
erty  of  all,  and  in  which  no  exclusive  ownership  can  be 
claimed  by  any.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  George  does  denounce 
the  conduct  of  his  own  Government  in  the  matter  of  its 
disposal  of  land.  But  strange  to  say,  he  does  not  denounce 
it  because  it  claims  this  exclusive  ownership.  On  the 
contrary,  he  denounces  it  because  it  ever  consents  to  part 
with  it.  Not  the  land  only,  but  the  very  atmosphere  of 
California— to  use  his  own  phraseology— is  to  be  held  so 
absolutely  and  so  exclusively  as  the  property  of  this  com¬ 
munity,  that  it  is  never  to  be  parted  with  except  on  lease 
and  for  such  annual  rent  as  the  Government  may  deter¬ 
mine.  Who  gave  this  exclusive  ownership  over  this 
immense  territory  to  this  particular  community?  Was 
it  conquest?  And  if  so,  may  it  not  be  as  rightfully 
acquired  by  any  who  are  strong  enough  to  seize  it?  And 
if  exclusive  ownership  is  conferred  by  conquest,  then  has 
it  not  been  open  to  every  conquering  army,  and  to  every 
occupying  host  in  all  ages  and  in  all  countries  of  the  world, 
to  establish  a  similar  ownership,  and  to  deal  with  it  as 
they  please  ? 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  catch  sight  of  one  aspect  of 
Mr.  George’s  theory  in  which  it  is  capable  of  at  least  a 
rational  explanation.  The  question  how  a  comparatively 
small  community  of  ’  men  like  the  first  gold-diggers  of 
California  and  their  descendants  can  with  best  advantage 
use  or  employ  its  exclusive  claims  of  ownership  over  so 
vast  an  area,  is  clearly  quite  an  open  question.  It  is  one 
thing  for  any  given  political  society  to  refuse  to  divide  its 
vacant  territory  among  individual  owners.  It  is  quite 
another  thing  for  a  political  society,  which  for  ages  has 
recognized  such  ownership  and  encouraged  it,  to  break 
faith  with  those  who  have  acquired  such  ownership  and 


18 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


have  lived  and  labored,  and  bought  and  sold,  and  willed 
upon  the  faith  of  it.  If  Mr.  George  can  persuade  the 
State  of  which  he  is  a  citizen,  and  the  Government  of 
which  he  is  in  this  sense  a  member,  that  it  would  be  best 
never  any  more  to  sell  any  bit  of  its  unoccupied  territory 
to  any  individual,  by  all  means  let  him  try  to  do  so,  and 
some  plausible  arguments  might  be  used  in  favor  of  such 
a  course.  But  there  is  a  strong  presumption  against  it 
and  him.  The  question  of  the  best  method  of  disposing 
of  such  territory  has  been  before  every  one  of  our  great 
colonies,  and  before  the  United  States  for  several  genera¬ 
tions  ;  and  the  universal  instinct  of  them  all  has  been 
that  the  individual  ownership  of  land  is  the  one  great 
attraction  which  they  can  hold  out  to  the  settlers  whom 
it  is  their  highest  interest  to  invite  and  to  establish.  They 
know  that  the  land  of  a  country  is  never  so  well  u  nation¬ 
alized  ”  as  when  it  is  committed  to  the  ownership  of  men 
whose  interest  it  is  to  make  the  most  of  it.  They  know 
that  under  no  other  inducement  could  men  be  found  to 
clear  the  soil  from  stifling  forests,  or  to  water  it  from  arid 
wastes,  or  to  drain  it  from  pestilential  swamps,  or  to 
inclose  it  from  the  access  of  wild  animals,  or  to  defend  it 
from  the  assaults  of  savage  tribes.  Accordingly  their 
verdict  has  been  unanimous ;  and  it  has  been  given  under 
conditions  in  which  they  were  free  from  all  traditions 
except  those  which  they  carried  with  them  as  parts  of 
their  own  nature,  in  harmony  and  correspondence  with  the 
nature  of  things  around  them.  I  do  not  stop  to  argue  this 
question  here ;  but  I  do  stop  to  point  out  that  both  solu¬ 
tions  of  it— the  one  quite  as  much  as  the  other— involve 
the  exclusive  occupation  of  land  by  individuals,  and  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  ownership  vested  in  particular  com¬ 
munities,  as  against  all  the  rest  of  mankind.  Both  are 
equally  incompatible  with  the  fustian  which  compares  the 
exclusive  occupation  of  land  to  exclusive  occupation  of 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


19 


'  H 

the  atmosphere.  Supposing  that  settlers  could  be  found 
willing  to  devote  the  years  of  labor  and  of  skill  which  are 
necessary  to  make  wild  soils  productive,  under  no  other 
tenure  than  that  of  a  long  “  improvement  lease,”  paying 
of  course  for  some  long  period  either  no  rent  at  all,  or 
else  a  rent  which  must  be  purely  nominal ;  supposing  this 
to  be  true,  still  equally  the  whole  area  of  any  given  region 
would  soon  be  in  the  exclusive  possession  for  long  periods 
of  time  of  a  certain  number  of  individual  farmers,  and 
would  not  be  open  to  the  occupation  by  the  poor  of  all 
the  world.  Thus  the  absolute  ownership  which  Mr.  George 
declares  to  be  blasphemous  against  God  and  Nature,  is 
still  asserted  on  behalf  of  some  mere  fraction  of  the  human 
race,  and  this  absolute  ownership  is  again  doled  out  to  the 
members  of  this  small  communitv,  and  to  them  alone,  in 
such  shares  as  it  considers  to  be  most  remunerative  to 
itself. 

And  here  again,  for  the  third  time,  we  come  upon  a 
most  remarkable  testimony  to  facts  in  Mr.  George’s  book, 
the  import  and  bearing  of  which  he  does  not  apparently 
perceive.  Of  course  the  question  whether  it  is  most 
advantageous  to  any  given  society  of  men  to  own  and 
cultivate  its  own  lands  in  severalty  or  in  common,  is  a 
question  largely  depending  on  the  conduct  and  the  motives 
and  the  character  of  governments,  as  compared  with  the 
conduct  and  the  character  and  the  motives  of  individual 
men.  In  the  disposal  and  application  of  wealth,  as  well 
as  in  the  acquisition  of  it,  are  men  more  pure  and  honest 
when  they  act  in  public  capacities  as  members  of  a  Govern¬ 
ment  or  of  a  Legislature,  than  when  they  act  in  private 
capacities  toward  their  fellow-men  ?  Is  it  not  notoriously 
the  reverse  ?  Is  it  not  obvious  that  men  will  do,  and  are 
constantly  seen  doing,  as  politicians,  what  they  would  be 
ashamed  to  do  in  private  life?  And  has  not  this  been 
proved  under  all  the  forms  which  government  has  taken 


20 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


in  the  history  of  political  societies  ?  Lastly,  I  will  ask  one 
other  question— Is  it  not  true  that,  to  say  the  very  least, 
this  inherent  tendency  to  corruption  has  received  no  check 
from  the  democratic  constitutions  of  those  many  “  new 
worlds  ”  in  which  kings  were  left  behind,  and  aristocracies 
have  not  had  time  to  be  established  ? 

These  are  the  very  questions  which  Mr.  George  answers 
with  no  faltering  voice  j  and  it  is  impossible  to  disregard 
his  evidence.  He  declares  over  and  over  again,  in  lan¬ 
guage  of  virtuous  indignation,  that  government  in  the 
United  States  is  everywhere  becoming  more  and  more 
corrupt.  Not  only  are  the  Legislatures  corrupt,  but  that 
last  refuge  of  virtue  even  in  the  worst  societies — the 
Judiciary— is  corrupt  also.  In  none  of  the  old  countries 
of  the  world  has  the  very  name  of  politician  fallen  so  low 
as  in  the  democratic  communities  of  America.  Nor  would 
it  be  true  to  say  that  it  is  the  wealthy  classes  who.  have 
corrupted  the  constituencies.  These— at  least  to  a  very 
large  extent— are  themselves  corrupt.  Probably  there  is 
no  sample  of  the  Demos  more  infected  with  corruption 
than  the  Demos  of  New  York.  Its  management  of  the 
municipal  rates  is  alleged  to  be  a  system  of  scandalous 
jobbery.  Now,  the  wonderful  thing  is  that  of  all  this 
Mr.  George  is  thoroughly  aware.  He  sees  it,  he  repeats 
it  in  every  variety  of  form.  Let  us  hear  a  single 
passage 

It  behooves  us  to  look  facts  in  the  face.  The  experiment  of  popu¬ 
lar  government  in  the  United  States  is  clearly  a  failure.  Not  that 
it  is  a  failure  everywhere  and  in  everything.  An  experiment  of  this 
kind  does  not  have  to  be  fully  worked  out  to  be  proved  a  failure. 
But  speaking  generally  of  the  whole  country,  from  the  Atlantic  to 
the  Pacific,  and  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  our  government  by  the 
people  has  in  large  degree  become,  is  in  larger  degree  becoming, 
government  by  the  strong  and  unscrupulous. 


*  “Social  Problems/’  Chapter  II. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


21 


Again,  I  say  that  it  is  fair  to  remember  that  Mr.  George 
is  a  Pessimist.  But  while  remembering  this,  and  making 
every  possible  allowance  for  it,  we  must  not  less  remember 
that  his  evidence  does  not  stand  alone.  In  the  United 
States,  from  citizens  still  proud  of  their  country,  and  out 
of  the  United  States,  from  representative  Americans,  I 
have  been  told  of  transactions  from  personal  knowledge 
which  conclusively  indicated  a  condition  of  things  closely 
corresponding  to  the  indictment  of  Mr.  George.  At  all 
events  we  cannot  be  wrong  in  our  conclusion  that  it  is  not 
among  the  public  bodies  and  Governments  of  the  States 
of  America  that  we  are  to  look  in  that  country  for  the 
best  exhibitions  of  purity  or  of  virtue. 

Yet  it  is  to  these  bodies— legislative,  administrative,  and 
judicial,  of  which  he  gives  us  such  an  account— that  Mr. 
George  would  confine  the  rights  of  absolute  ownership  in 
the  soil.  It  is  these  bodies  that  he  would  constitute  the 
sole  and  universal  landlord,  and  it  is  to  them  he  would 
confide  the  duty  of  assessing  and  of  spending  the  rents  of 
everybody  all  over  the  area  of  every  State.  He  tells  us 
that  a  great  revenue,  fit  for  the  support  of  some  such  great 
rulers  as  have  been  common  in  the  Old  World,  could  be 
afforded  out  of  one-half  the  “  waste  and  stealages  ”  of  such 
Municipalities  as  his  own  at  San  Francisco.  What  would 
be  the  “  waste  and  stealages  ”  of  a  governing  body  having 
at  its  disposal  the  whole  agricultural  and  mining  wealth 
of  such  States  as  California  and  Texas,  of  Illinois  and 
Colorado  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  testimony  which  is  borne  by 
Mr.  George  as  to  what  the  governing  bodies  of  America 
now  are  is  as  nothing  to  the  testimony  of  his  own  writings 
as  to  what  they  would  be— if  they  were  ever  to  adopt  his 
system,  and  if  they  were  ever  to  listen  to  his  teaching. 
Like  all  Communists,  he  regards  Society  not  as  consisting 
of  individuals  whose  separate  welfare  is  to  be  the  basis  of 


22 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


the  welfare  of  the  whole,  but  as  a  great  abstract  Person¬ 
ality,  in  which  all  power  is  to  be  centered,  and  to  which 
all  separate  rights  and  interests  are  to  be  subordinate. 
If  this  is  to  be  the  doctrine,  we  might  at  least  have  hoped 
that  with  such  powers  committed  to  Governments,  as 
against  the  individual,  corresponding  duties  and  responsi¬ 
bilities,  toward  the  individual,  would  have  been  recognized 
as  an  indispensable  accompaniment.  If,  for  example, 
every  political  society  as  a  whole  is  an  abiding  Personality, 
with  a  continuity  of  rights  over  all  its  members,  we  might 
at  least  have  expected  that  the  continuous  obligation  of 
honor  and  good  faith  would  have  been  recognized  as 
equally  binding  on  this  Personality  in  all  its  relations 
with  those  who  are  subject  to  its  rule.  But  this  is  not 
at  all  Mr.  George’s  view.  On  the  contrary,  he  preaches 
systematically  not  only  the  high  privilege,  but  the  positive 
duty  of  repudiation.  He  is  not  content  with  urging  that 
no  more  bits  of  unoccupied  land  should  be  ever  sold,  but 
he  insists  upon  it  that  the  ownership  of  every  bit  already 
sold  shall  be  resumed  without  compensation  to  the  settler 
who  has  bought  it,  who  has  spent  upon  it  years  of  labor, 
and  who  from  first  to  last  has  relied  on  the  security  of 
the  State  and  on  the  honor  of  its  Government.  There  is 
no  mere  practice  of  corruption  which  has  ever  been  alleged 
against  the  worst  administrative  body  in  any  country  that 
can  be  compared  in  corruption  with  the  desolating  dis¬ 
honor  of  this  teaching.  In  olden  times,  under  violent  and 
rapacious  rulers,  the  Prophets  of  Israel  and  of  Judah  used 
to  raise  their  voices  against  all  forms  of  wrong  and  rob¬ 
bery,  and  they  pronounced  a  special  benediction  upon 
him  who  sweareth  to  his  own  hurt  and  cliangetli  not. 
But  the  new  Prophet  of  San  Francisco  is  of  a  different 
opinion.  Ahab  would  have  been  saved  all  his  trouble, 
and  Jezebel  would'  have  been  saved  all  her  tortuous 
intrigues  if  only  tliev  could  have  had  beside  them  the 


I 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO.  23 

voice  of  Mr.  Henry  George.  Elijah  was  a  fool.  What 
right  could  Naboth  have  to  talk  about  the  “inheritance  of 
his  fathers  ”  ?  *  His  fathers  could  have  no  more  right  to 
acquire  the  ownership  of  those  acres  on  the  Hill  of  Jezreel 
than  he  could  have  to  continue  in  the  usurpation  of  it. 
No  matter  what  might  be  his  pretended  title,  no  man  and 
no  body  of  men  could  give  it :  — not  Joshua  nor  the  Judges ; 
not  Saul  nor  David;  not  Solomon  in  all  his  glory— could 
“make  sure”  to  Naboth’s  fathers  that  portion  of  God’s 
earth  against  the  undying  claims  of  the  head  of  the  State, 
and  of  the  representative  of  the  whole  people  of  Israel. 

But  now  another  vista  of  consequence  opens  up  before 
us.  If  the  doctrine  be  established  that  no  faith  is  to  be 
kept  with  the  owners  of  land,  will  the  same  principle  not 
apply  to  tenancy  as  well  as  ownership  ?  If  one  generation 
cannot  bind  the  next  to  recognize  a  purchase,  can  one 
generation  bind  another  to  recognize  a  lease  ?  If  the  one 
promise  can  be  broken  and  ought  to  be  broken,  why 
should  the  other  be  admitted  to  be  binding  ?  If  the  accu¬ 
mulated  value  arising  out  of  many  years,  or  even  genera¬ 
tions,  of  labor,  can  be  and  ought  to  be  appropriated,  is 
there  any  just  impediment  against  seizing  that  value  every 
year  as  it  comes  to  be?  If  this  new  gospel  be  indeed 
gospel,  why  should  not  this  Californian  form  of  “faith 
unfaithful”  keep  us  perennially  and  forever  “falsely 
true  ”  ? 

Nay,  more,  is  there  any  reason  why  the  doctrine  of 
repudiation  should  be  confined  to  pledges  respecting 
either  the  tenancy  or  the  ownership  of  land?  This  ques¬ 
tion  naturally  arose  in  the  minds  of  all  who  read  with 
any  intelligence  “Progress  and  Poverty”  when  it  first 
appeared.  But  the  extent  to  which  its  immoral  doctrines 
might  be  applied  was  then  a  matter  of  inference  only, 


*  1  Kings  xxi.  3. 


24 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


however  clear  that  inference  might  be.  If  all  owners  of 
land,  great  and  small,  might  be  robbed,  and  ought  to  be 
robbed  of  that  which  Society  had  from  time  immemorial 
allowed  them  and  encouraged  them  to  acquire  and  to  call 
their  own j  if  the  thousands  of  men,  women,  and  children 
who  directly  and  indirectly  live  on  rent,  whether  in  the 
form  of  returns  to  the  improver,  or  of  mortgage  to  the 
capitalist,  or  jointure  to  the  widow,  or  portion  to  the 
children,  are  all  equally  to  be  ruined  by  the  confiscation 
of  the  fund  on  which  they  depend — are  there  not  other 
funds  which  would  be  all  swept  into  the  same  net  of  envy 
and  of  violence  ?  In  particular,  what  is  to  become  of  that 
great  fund  on  which  also  thousands  and  thousands  depend 
—men,  women,  and  children,  the  aged,  the  widow,  and 
the  orphan— the  fund  which  the  State  has  borrowed  and 
which  constitutes  the  Debt  of  Nations!  Even  in  “Prog¬ 
ress  and  Poverty  there  were  dark  hints  and  individual 
passages  which  indicated  the  goal  of  all  its  reasoning  in 
this  direction.  But  men’s  intellects  just  now  are  so  flabby 
on  these  subjects,  and  they  are  so  fond  of  shaking  their 
heads  when  property  in  land  is  compared  with  property  in 
other  things,  that  such  suspicions  and  forebodings  as  to 
the  issue  of  Mr.  George’s  arguments  would  to  many  have 
seemed  overstrained.  Fortunately,  in  his  later  book  he 
has  had  the  courage  of  his  opinions,  and  the  logic  of  false 
premises  has  steeled  his  moral  sense  against  the  iniquity 
of  even  the  most  dishonorable  conclusions.  All  National 
Debts  are  as  unjust  as  property  in  land ;  all  such  Debts 
are  to  be  treated  with  the  sponge.  As  no  faith  is  due  to 
landowners,  or  to  any  who  depend  on  their  sources  of 
income,  so  neither  is  any  faith  to  be  kept  with  bond¬ 
holders,  or  with  any  who  depend  on  the  revenues  which 
have  been  pledged  to  them.  The  Jew  who  may  have  lent 
a  million,  and  the  small  tradesman  who  may  have  lent  his 
little  savings  to  the  State— the  trust-funds  of  children  and 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


25 


of  widows  which  have  been  similarly  lent— are  all  equally 
to  be  the  victims  of  repudiation.  When  we  remember 
the  enormous  amount  of  the  National  Debts  of  Europe  and 
of  the  American  States,  and  the  vast  number  of  persons 
of  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  wealth  whose  property  is 
invested  in  these  “promises  to  pay,”  we  can  perhaps 
faintly  imagine  the  ruin  which  would  be  caused  by  the 
gigantic  fraud  recommended  by  Mr.  George.  Take  Eng¬ 
land  alone.  About  seven  hundred  and  fifty  millions  is 
the  amount  of  her  Public  Debt.  This  great  sum  is  held 
by  about  181,721  persons,  of  whom  the  immense  majority 
—about  111,000— receive  dividends  amounting  to  £400  a 
year  and  under.  Of.  these,  again,  by  far  the  greater  part 
enjoy  incomes  of  less  than  £100  a  year.  And  then  the 
same  principle  is  of  course  applicable  to  the  debt  of  all 
public  bodies  ;  those  of  the  Municipalities  alone,  which  are 
rapidly  increasing,  would  now  amount  to  something  like 

one  hundred  and  fiftv  millions  more. 

«/ 

Everything  in  America  is  on  a  gigantic  scale,  even  its 
forms  of  villainy,  and  the  villainy  advocated  by  Mr.  George 
is  an  illustration  of  this  as  striking  as  the  Mammoth  Cave 
of  Kentucky,  or  the  frauds  of  the  celebrated  “  Tammany 
Ring”  in  New  York.  The  world  has  never  seen  such  a 
Preacher  of  Unrighteousness  as  Mr.  Henry  George.  For 
he  goes  to  the  roots  of  things,  and  shows  us  how  unfounded 
are  the  rules  of  probity,  and  what  mere  senseless  super¬ 
stitions  are  the  obligations  which  have  been  only  too  long 
acknowledged.  Let  us  hear  him  on  National  Debts,  for 
it  is  an  excellent  specimen  of  his  childish  logic,  and  of  his 
profligate  conclusions : 

The  institution  of  public  debts,  like  the  institution  of  private 
property  in  land,  rests  upon  the  preposterous  assumption  that  one 
generation  may  bind  another  generation.  If  a  man  were  to  come  to 
me  and  say,  “  Here  is  a  promissory  note  which  your  great-grand¬ 
father  gave  to  my  great-grandfather,  and  which  you  will  oblige  me 


26 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


by  paying,”  I  would  laugh  at  him,  and  tell  him  that  if  he  wanted  to 
collect  his  note  he  had  better  hunt  up  the  man  who  made  it ;  that  I 
had  nothing  to  do  with  my  great-grandfather’s  promises.  And 
if  he  were  to  insist  upon  payment,  and  to  call  my  attention  to  the 
terms  of  the  bond  in  which  my  great-grandfather  expressly  stipu¬ 
lated  with  his  great-grandfather  that  I  should  pay  him,  I  wrould  only 
laugh  the  more,  and  be  the  more  certain  that  he  was  a  lunatic.  To 
such  a  demand  any  one  of  us  would  reply  in  effect,  “My  great-grand¬ 
father  was  evidently  a  knave  or  a  joker,  and  your  great-grandfather 
was  certainly  a  fool,  which  quality  you  surely  have  inherited  if  you 
expect  me  to  pay  you  money  because  my  great-grandfather  promised 
that  I  should  do  so.  He  might  as  well  have  given  your  great-grand¬ 
father  a  draft  upon  Adam  or  a  check  upon  the  First  National  Bank 
of  the  Moon.” 

Yet  upon  this  assumption  that  ascendants  may  bind  descendants, 
that  one  generation  may  legislate  for  another  generation,  rests  the 
assumed  validity  of  our  land  titles  and  public  debts.* 

Yet  even  in  this  wonderful  passage  we  have  not  touched 
the  bottom  of  Mr.  George’s  lessons  in  the  philosophy  of 
spoliation.  If  we  may  take  the  property  of  those  who 
have  trusted  to  our  honor,  surely  it  must  be  still  more 
legitimate  to  take  the  property  of  those  who  have  placed 
in  us  no  such  confidence.  If  we  may  fleece  the  public 
creditor,  it  must  be  at  least  equally  open  to  us  to  fleece  all 
those  who  have  invested  otherwise  their  private  fortunes. 
All  the  other  accumulations  of  industry  must  be  as  right¬ 
fully  liable  to  confiscation.  Whenever  u  the  people  ”  see 
any  large  handful  in  the  hands  of  any  one,  they  have  a 
right  to  have  it— in  order  to  save  themselves  from  any 
necessity  of  submitting  to  taxation. 

Accordingly  we  find,  as  usual,  that  Mr.  George  has  a 
wonderful  honesty  in  avowing  what  hitherto  the  unin¬ 
structed  world  has  been  agreed  upon  considering  as 
dishonesty.  But  this  time  the  avowal  comes  out  under 
circumstances  which  are  deserving  of  special  notice.  Wo. 


* 


“Social  Problems,”  Chapter  XYI. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


27 


all  know  that  not  many  years  ago  the  United  States  was 
engaged  in  a  civil  war  of  long  duration,  at  one  time 
apparently  of  doubtful  issue,  and  on  which  the  national 
existence  hung.  I  was  one  of  those— not  too  many  in 
this  country— who  held  from  the  beginning  of  that  ter¬ 
rible  contest  that  “the  North ”  were  right  in  fighting  it. 
Lord  Russell,  on  a  celebrated  occasion,  said  that  they 
were  fighting  for  “  dominion.”  Yes ;  and  for  what  else 
have  nations  ever  fought,  and  by  what  else  than  dominion, 
in  one  sense  or  another— have  great  nations  ever  come  to 
be  ?  The  Demos  has  no  greater  right  to  fight  for  dominion 
than  Kings ;  but  it  has  the  same.  But  behind  and  above 
the  existence  of  the  Union  as  a  nation  there  was  the  further 
question  involved  whether,  in  this  nineteenth  century  of 
the  Christian  era,  there  was  to  be  established  a  great 
dominion  of  civilized  men  which  was  to  have  negro 
slavery  as  its  fundamental  doctrine  and  as  the  cherished 
basis  of  its  constitution.  On  both  of  these  great  questions 
the  people  of  the  Northern  States— in  whatever  propor¬ 
tions  the  one  or  the  other  issue  might  affect  individual 
minds — had  before  them  as  noble  a  cause  as  any  which 
has  ever  called  men  to  arms.  It  is  a  cause  which  will  be 
forever  associated  in  the  memory  of  mankind  with  one 
great  figure — the  figure  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  the  best  and 
highest  representative  of  the  American  people  in  that 
tremendous  crisis.  In  nothing  has  the  bearing  of  that 
people  been  more  admirable  than  in  the  patient  and  willing 
submission  of  the  masses,  as  of  one  man,  not  only  to  the 
desolating  sacrifice  of  life  which  it  entailed,  but  to  the 
heavy  and  lasting  burden  of  taxation  which  was  insepa¬ 
rable  from  it.  It  is  indeed  deplorable— nothing  I  have 
ever  read  in  all  literature  has  struck  me  as  so  deplorable 
— that  at  this  time  of  day,  when  by  patient  continu¬ 
ance  in  well-doing  the  burden  has  become  comparatively 
light,  and  there  is  a  near  prospect  of  its  final  disappear- 


28 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


ance,  one  single  American  citizen  should  be  found  who 
appreciates  so  little  the  glory  of  his  country  as  to  express 
his  regret  that  they  did  not  begin  this  great  contest  by 
an  act  of  stealing.  Yet  this  is  the  case  with  Mr.  Henry 
George.  In  strict  pursuance  of  his  dishonest  doctrines  of 
repudiation  respecting  public  debts,  and  knowing  that  the 
war  could  not  have  been  prosecuted  without  funds,  he 
speaks  with  absolute  bitterness  of  the  folly  which  led  the 
Government  to  u shrink”  from  at  once  seizing  the  whole, 
or  all  but  a  mere  fraction,  of  the  property  of  the  few 
individual  citizens  who  had  the  reputation  of  being  excep¬ 
tionally  rich.  If,  for  example,  it  were  known  that  any 
man  had  made  a  fortune  of  £200,000,  the  Washington 
Government  ought  not  to  have  u  shrunk  ”  from  taking 
the  whole— except  some  £200,  which  remainder  might, 
perhaps,  by  a  great  favor,  be  left  for  such  support  as  it 
might  afford  to  the  former  owner.  And  so  by  a  number 
of  seizures  of  this  kind,  all  over  the  States,  the  war  might 
possibly  have  been  conducted  for  the  benefit  of  all  at  the 
cost  of  a  very  few.* 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  illustrate  how  this  would  have 
worked  in  a  single  instance.  When  I  was  in  New  York, 
a  few  years  ago,  one  of  the  sights  which  was  pointed  out 
to  me  was  a  house  of  great  size  and  of  great  beauty  both 
in  respect  to  material  and  to  workmanship.  In  these 
respects  at  least,  if  not  in  its  architecture,  it  was  equal  to 
any  of  the  palaces  which  are  owned  by  private  citizens  in 
any  of  the  richest  capitals  of  the  Old  World.  It  was  built 
wholly  of  pure  white  marble,  and  the  owner,  not  having 
been  satisfied  with  any  of  the  marbles  of  America,  had 

*  Mr.  George’s  words  are  these  :  “  If,  when  we  called  on  men  to 
die  for  their  country,  we  had  not  shrunk  from  taking,  if  necessary, 
nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  thousand  dollars  from  every  million¬ 
aire,  we  need  not  have  created  any  debt”  (“ Social  Problems,” 
Chapter  XVI. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


29 


gone  to  the  expense  of  importing  Italian  marble  for  the 
building.  This  beautiful  and  costly  house  was,  I  was 
further  told,  the  property  of  a  Scotchman  who  had  emi¬ 
grated  to  America  with  no  other  fortune  and  no  other 
capital  than  his  own  good  brains.  He  had  begun  by 
selling  ribbons.  By  selling  cheap,  and  for  ready  money, 
but  always  also  goods  of  the  best  quality,  he  had  soon 
acquired  a  reputation  for  dealings  which  were  eminently 
advantageous  to  those  who  bought.  But  those  who 
bought  were  the  public,  and  so  a  larger  and  a  larger  por¬ 
tion  of  the  public  became  eager  to  secure  the  advantages 
of  this  exceptionally  moderate  and  honest  dealer.  With 
the  industry  of  his  race  he  had  also  its  thrift,  and  the 
constant  turning  of  his  capital  on  an  ever-increasing  scale, 
coupled  with  his  own  limited  expenditure,  had  soon  led  to 
larger  and  larger  savings.  These,  again,  had  been  judi¬ 
ciously  invested  in  promoting  every  public  undertaking 
which  promised  advantage  to  his  adopted  country,  and 
which,  by  fulfilling  that  promise,  could  alone  become 
remunerative.  And  so  by  a  process  which,  in  ever}^  step 
of  it,  was  an  eminent  service  to  the  community  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  he  became  what  is  called  a  millionaire. 
Nor  in  the  spending  of  his  wealth  had  he  done  otherwise 
than  contribute  to  the  taste  and  splendor  of  his  country, 
as  well  as  to  the  lucrative  employment  of  its  people.  All 
Nature  is  full  of  the  love  of  ornament,  and  the  habita¬ 
tions  of  creatures,  even  the  lowest  in  the  scale  of  being, 
are  rich  in  coloring  and  in  carving  of  the  most  exquisite 
and  elaborate  decoration.  It  is  only  an  ignorant  and 
uncultured  spirit  which  denounces  the  same  love  of  orna¬ 
ment  in  Man,  and  it  is  a  stupid  doctrine  which  sees  in  it 
nothing  but  a  waste  of  means.  The  great  merchant  of 
New, York  had  indeed  built  his  house  at  great  cost;  but 
this  is  only  another  form  of  saying  that  he  had  spent 
among  the  artificers  of  that  city  a  great  sum  of  money, 


30 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


and  had  in  the  same  proportion  contributed  to  the  only 
employment  by  which  they  live.  In  every  way,  therefore, 
both  as  regards  the  getting  and  the  spending  of  his  wealth, 
this  millionaire  was  an  honor  and  a  benefactor  to  his 
country.  This  is  the  man  on  whom  that  same  country 
would  have  been  incited  by  Mr.  Henry  George  to  turn 
the  big  eyes  of  brutal  envy,  and  to  rob  of  all  his  earnings. 
It  is  not  so  much  the  dishonesty  or  the  violence  of  such 
teaching  that  strikes  us  most,  but  its  unutterable  mean¬ 
ness.  That  a  great  nation,  having  a  great  cause  at  stake, 
and  representing  in  the  history  of  the  world  a  life-and- 
deatli  struggle  against  barbarous  institutions,  ought  to 
have  begun  its  memorable  war  by  plundering  a  few  of 
its  own  citizens— this  is  surely  the  very  lowest  depth 
which  has  ever  been  reached  by  any  political  philosophy. 

And  not  less  instructive  than  the  results  of  this  philos¬ 
ophy  are  the  methods  of  its  reasoning,  its  methods  of 
illustration,  and  its  way  of  representing  facts.  Of  these 
we  cannot  have  a  better  example  than  the  passage  before 
quoted,  in  which  Mr.  Henry  George  explains  the  right 
of  nations  and  the  right  of  individuals  to  repudiate  an 
hereditary  debt.  It  is  well  to  see  that  the  man  who 
defends  the  most  dishonorable  conduct  on  the  part  of 
Governments  defends  it  equally  on  the  part  of  private 
persons.  The  passage  is  a  typical  specimen  of  the  kind 
of  stuff  of  which  Mr.  George’s  works  are  full.  The  ele¬ 
ment  of  plausibility  in  it  is  the  idea  that  a  man  should 
not  be  held  responsible  for  promises  to  which  he  was  not 
himself  a  consenting  party.  This  idea  is  presented  by 
itself,  with  a  careful  suppression  of  the  conditions  which 
make  it  inapplicable  to  the  case  in  hand.  Hereditary 
debts  do  not  attach  to  persons  except  in  respect  to  heredi¬ 
tary  possessions.  Are  these  possessions  to  be  kept  while 
the  corresponding  obligations  are  to  be  denied!  Mr. 
George  is  loud  on  the  absurdity  of  calling  upon  him  to 
honor  any  promise  which  his  great-grandfather  may  have 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


31 


made,  but  he  is  silent  about  giving  up  any  resources 
which  his  great-grandfather  may  have  left.  Possibly  he 
might  get  out  of  this  difficulty  by  avowing  that  he  would 
allow  no  property  to  pass  from  one  generation  to  another 
—not  even  from  father  to  son— that  upon  every  death  all 
the  savings  of  every  individual  should  be  confiscated  by 
the  State.  Such  a  proposal  would  not  be  one  whit  more 
violent,  or  more  destructive  to  society,  than  other  pro¬ 
posals  which  he  does  avow.  But  so  far  as  I  have  observed, 
this  particular  consequence  of  his  reasoning  is  either  not 
seen,  or  is  kept  in  the  dark.  With  all  his  apparent  and 
occasional  honesty  in  confronting  results  however  anar¬ 
chical,  there  is  a  good  deal  of  evidence  that  he  knows  how 
to  conceal  his  hand.  The  prominence  given  in  his  agita¬ 
tion  to  an  attack  on  the  particular  class  of  capitalists  who 
are  owners  of  land,  and  the  total  or  comparative  silence 
which  he  maintains  on  his  desire  to  rob  fund-holders  of 
all  kinds,  and  especially  the  public  creditor,  is  a  clear 
indication  of  a  strategy  which  is  more  dexterous  than 
honest.  And  so  it  may  really  be  true  that  he  repudiates 
all  hereditary  debt  because  he  will  also  destroy  all  heredi¬ 
tary  succession  in  savings  of  any  kind.  But  it  must  be 
observed  that  even  thus  he  cannot  escape  from  the  incon¬ 
sistency  I  have  pointed  out,  as  it  affects  all  public  debts. 
These  have  all  been  contracted  for  the  purpose  of  effecting 
great  national  objects,  such  as  the  preservation  of  national 
independence,  or  the  acquisition  of  national  territory,  or 
the  preparations  needed  for  national  defense.  The  State 
cannot  be  disinherited  of  the  benefits  and  possessions  thus 
secured,  as  individuals  may  be  disinherited  of  their  fathers7 
gains.  In  the  case  of  National  Debts,  therefore,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  the  immorality  of  Mr.  George’s  argument  is  as 
conspicuous  as  the  childishness  of  its  reasoning. 

But  there  are  other  examples,  quite  as  striking,  of  the 
incredible  absurdity  of  his  reasoning,  which  are  immedi¬ 
ately  connected  with  his  dominant  idea  about  property  in 


32 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


land.  Thus  the  notion  that  because  all  the  natural  and 
elementary  substances  which  constitute  the  raw  materials 
of  human  wealth  are  substances  derived  from  the  ground, 
therefore  all  forms  of  that  wealth  must  ultimately  tend 
to  concentration  in  the  hands  of  those  who  own  the  land  j 
this  notion  must  strike  a  landowner  as  one  worthy  only 
of  Bedlam.  He  may  not  be  able  at  a  moment’s  notice  to 
unravel  all  the  fallacies  on  which  it  rests,  and  he  may 
even  be  able  to  see  in  it  the  mad  mimicry  of  logic  which 
deceives  the  ignorant.  But  it  does  not  need  to  be  a  land- 
owner  to  see  immediately  that  the  conclusion  is  an 
absurdity.  We  have  only  to  apply  this  notion  in  detail  in 
order  to  see  more  and  more  clearly  its  discrepancy  with 
fact.  Thus,  for  example,  we  may  put  one  application  of 
it  thus :  All  houses  are  built  of  materials  derived  from  the 
soil,  of  stone,  of  lime,  of  brick,  or  of  wood,  or  of  all  four 
combined.  But  of  these  materials  three  are  not  only 
products  of  the  soil,  but  parts  of  its  very  substance  and 
material.  Clearly  it  must  follow  that  the  whole  value  of 
house  property  must  end  in  passing  into  the  hands  of 
those  who  own  these  materials,  quarries  of  building-stone, 
beds  of  brick-earth,  beds  of  lime,  and  forests.  Unfortu¬ 
nately  for  landowners,  this  wonderful  demonstration  does 
not,  somehow,  take  effect. 

But  Mr.  Henry  George’s  processes  in  matters  of  reason¬ 
ing  are  not  more  absurd  than  his  assumptions  in  matters 
of  fact.  The  whole  tone  is  based  on  the  assumption  that 
owners  of  land  are  not  producers,  and  that  rent  does  not 
represent,  or  represents  only  in  a  very  minor  degree,  the 
interest  of  capital.  Even  an  American  ought  to  know 
better  than  this ;  because,  although  there  are  in  some 
parts  of  the  United  States  immense  areas  of  prairie  land 
which  are  ready  for  the  plow  with  almost  no  preliminary 
labor,  yet  even  in  the  New  World  the  areas  are  still  more 
immense  in  which  the  soil  can  only  be  made  capable  of 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


33 


producing;  human  food  by  the  hardest  of  labor,  and  the 
most  prolonged.  But  in  the  old  countries  of  Europe,  and 
especially  in  our  own,  every  landowner  knows  well,  and 
others  ought  to  know  a  little,  that  the  present  condition 
of  the  soil  is  the  result  of  generations  of  costly  improve¬ 
ments,  and  of  renewed  and  reiterated  outlays  to  keep 
these  improvements  in  effective  order.  Yet  on  this  subject 
I  fear  that  many  persons  are  almost  as  ignorant  as  Mr. 
Henry  George.  My  own  experience  now  extends  over  a 
period  of  the  best  part  of  forty  years.  During  that  time 
I  have  built  more  than  fifty  homesteads  complete  for  man 
and  beast ;  I  have  drained  and  reclaimed  many  hundreds, 
and  inclosed  some  thousands,  of  acres.  In  this  sense  I 
have  “  added  house  to  house  and  field  to  field,”  not— as 
pulpit  orators  have  assumed  in  similar  cases— that  I  might 
u  dwell  alone  in  the  land,”  but  that  the  cultivating  class 
might  live  more  comfortably,  and  with  better  appliances 
for  increasing  the  produce  of  the  soil.  I  know  no  more 
animating  scene  than  that  presented  to  us  in  the  essays 
and  journals  which  give  an  account  of  the  agricultural 
improvements  effected  in  Scotland  since  the  close  of  the 
Civil  Wars  in  1745.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  acres 
have  been  reclaimed  from  bog  and  waste.  Ignorance  has 
given  place  to  science,  and  barbarous  customs  of  immemo¬ 
rial  strength  have  been  replaced  by  habits  of  intelligence 
and  of  business.  In  every  county  the  great  landowners, 
and  very  often  the  smaller,  were  the  great  pioneers  in  a 
process  which  has  transformed  the  whole  face  of  the 
country.  And  this  process  is  still  in  full  career.  If  I 
mention  again  my  own  case,  it  is  because  I  know  it  to  be 
only  a  specimen,  and  that  others  have  been  working  on  a 
still  larger  scale.  During  the  four  years  since  Mr.  George 
did  me  the  honor  of  sending  to  me  a  book  assuming  that 
landowners  are  not  producers,  I  find  that  I  have  spent  on 
one  property  alone  the  sum  of  £40,000  entirely  on  the 


34 


PEOPEETY  IN  LAND. 


improvement  of  the  soil.  Moreover,  I  know  that  this 
outlay  on  my  own  part,  and  similar  outlay  on  the  part  of 
my  neighbors,  so  far  from  having  power  to  absorb  and 
concentrate  in  our  hands  all  other  forms  of  wealth,  is 
unable  to  secure  anything  like  the  return  which  the  same 
capital  would  have  won— and  won  easily— in  many  other 
kinds  of  enterprise.  I  am  in  possession  of  authentic 
information  that  on  one  great  estate  in  England  the  outlay 
on  improvements  purely  agricultural  has,  for  twenty-one 
years  past,  been  at  the  rate  of  £35,000  a  year,  while 
including  outlay  on  churches  and  schools,  it  has  amounted 
in  the  last  forty  years  to  nearly  £2,000,000  sterling.  To 
such  outlays  landowners  are  incited  very  often,  and  to  a 
great  extent,  by  the  mere  love  of  seeing  a  happier  land¬ 
scape  and  a  more  prosperous  people.  From  much  of  the 
capital  so  invested  they  often  seek  no  return  at  all,  and 
from  very  little  of  it  indeed  do  they  ever  get  a  high  rate 
of  interest.  And  yet  the  whole— every  farthing  of  it— 
goes  directly  to  the  public  advantage.  Production  is 
increased  in  full  proportion,  although  the  profit  on  that 
production  is  small  to  the  owner.  There  has  been  grown 
more  corn,  more  potatoes,  more  turnips;  there  has  been 
produced  more  milk,  more  butter,  more  cheese,  more  beef, 
more  mutton,  more  pork,  more  fowls  and  eggs,  and  all 
these  articles  in  direct  proportion  to  their  abundance  have 
been  sold  at  lower  prices  to  the  people.  When  a  man  tells 
me,  and  argues  on  steps  of  logic  which  he  boasts  as  irre¬ 
futable,  that  in  all  this  I  and  others  have  been  serving  no 
interests  but  our  own— nav,  more,  that  we  have  been  but 
making  “the  poor  poorer”  than  they  were— I  know  very 
well  that,  whether  I  can  unravel  his  fallacies  or  not,  he 
is  talking  the  most  arrant  nonsense,  and  must  have  in 
his  composition,  however  ingenious  and  however  eloquent, 
a  rich  combination  and  a  very  large  percentage  of  the 
fanatic  and  of  the  goose. 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


35 


And  here,  again,  we  have  a  new  indication  of  these 
elements  in  one  great  assumption  of  fact,  and  that  is  the 
assumption  that  wealth  has  been  becoming  less  and  less 
diffused—  “  the  rich  richer,  the  poor  poorer.”  It  did  not 
require  the  recent  elaborate  and  able  statistical  examina¬ 
tion  of  Mr.  Giffen  to  convince  me  that  this  assumption  is 
altogether  false.  It  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  have 
been  a  considerable  employer  of  labor  during  a  period 
embracing  one  full  generation,  without  his  seeing  and 
feeling  abundant  evidence  that  all  classes  have  partaken 
in  the  progress  of  the  country,  and  no  class  more  exten¬ 
sively  than  that  which  lives  by  labor.  He  must  know 
that  wages  have  more  than  doubled — sometimes  a  great 
deal  more— while  the  continuous  remission  of  taxes  has 
tended  to  make,  and  has  actually  made  almost  every  article 
of  subsistence  a  great  deal  cheaper  than  it  was  thirty  years 
ago.  And  outside  the  province  of  mere  muscular  labor, 
among  all  the  classes  who  are  concerned  in  the  work  of 
distribution  or  of  manufacture,  I  have  seen  around  me, 
and  on  my  own  property,  the  enormous  increase  of  those 
whose  incomes  must  be  comfortable  without  being  large. 
The  houses  that  are  built  for  their  weeks  of  rest  and 
leisure,  the  furniture  with  which  these  houses  are  provided, 
the  gardens  and  shrubberies  which  are  planted  for  the 
ornament  of  them  ;  all  of  these  indications,  and  a  thousand 
more,  tell  of  increasing  comfort  far  more  widely  if  not 
universally  diffused. 

And  if  personal  experience  enables  me  to  contradict 
absolutely  one  of  Mr.  George’s  assumptions,  official  experi¬ 
ence  enables  me  not  less  certainly  to  contradict  another. 
Personally  I  know  what  private  ownership  has  done  for 
one  country.  Officially  I  have  had  only  too  good  cause 
to  know  what  State  ownership  has  not  done  for  another 
country.  India  is  a  country  in  which,  theoretically  at 
least,  the  State  is  the  only  and  the  universal  landowner, 


36 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


and  over  a  large  part  of  it  the  State  does  actually  take  to 
itself  a  share  of  the  gross  produce  which  fully  represents 
ordinary  rent.  Yet  this  is  the  very  country  in  which  the 
poverty  of  the  masses  is  so  abject  that  millions  live  only 
from  hand  to  mouth,  and  when  there  is  any— even  a 
partial— failure  of  the  crops,  thousands  and  hundreds  of 
thousands  are  in  danger  of  actual  starvation.  The  Indian 
Government  is  not  corrupt— whatever  other  failings  it 
may  have— and  the  rents  of  a  vast  territory  can  be  far 
more  safe  if  left  to  its  disposal  than  they  could  be  left  at 
the  disposal  of  such  popular  Governments  as  those  which 
Mr.  George  has  denounced  on  the  American  Continent. 
Yet  somehow  the  functions  and  duties  which  in  more 
civilized  countries  are  discharged  by  the  institution  of 
private  ownership  in  land  are  not  as  adequately  discharged 
by  the  Indian  Administration.  Moreover,  I  could  not  fail 
to  observe,  when  I  was  connected  with  the  Government  of 
India,  that  the  portion  of  that  country  which  has  most 
grown  in  wealth  is  precisely  that  part  of  it  in  which  the 
Government  has  parted  with  its  power  of  absorbing  rent 
by  having  agreed  to  a  Permanent  Settlement.  Many 
Anglo-Indian  statesmen  have  looked  with  envious  eyes 
at  the  wealth  which  has  been  developed  in  Lower  Bengal, 
and  have  mourned  over  the  policy  by  which  the  State  has 
been  withheld  from  taking  it  into  the  hands  of  Govern¬ 
ment.  There  are  two  questions,  however,  which  have 
always  occurred  to  me  when  this  mourning  lias  been 
expressed— the  first  is  whether  we  are  quite  sure  that  the 
wealth  of  Lower  Bengal  would  ever  have  arisen  if  its 
sources  had  not  been  thus  protected ;  and  the  second  is 
whether  even  now  it  is  quite  certain  that  any  Govern¬ 
ments,  even  the  best,  spend  wealth  better  for  the  public 
interests  than  those  to  whom  it  belongs  by  the  natural 
processes  of  acquisition.  These  questions  have  never,  I 
think,  been  adequately  considered.  But  whatever  may  be 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


37 


the  true  answer  to  either  of  them,  there  is  at  least  one 
question  on  which  all  English  statesmen  have  been  unan¬ 
imous— and  that  is,  that  promises  once  given  by  the 
Government,  however  long  ago,  must  be  absolutely  kept. 
When  landed  property  has  been  bought  and  sold  and 
inherited  in  Bengal  for  some  three  generations— since 
1793— under  the  guaranty  of  the  Government  that  the 
-  Rent  Tax  upon  it  is  to  remain  at  a  fixed  amount,  no  public 
man,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  ever  suggested  that  the  public 
faith  should  be  violated.  And  not  only  so,  but  there  has 
been  a  disposition  even  to  put  upon  the  engagement  of 
the  Government  an  overstrained  interpretation,  and  to 
claim  for  the  landowners  who  are  protected  under  it  an 
immunity  from  all  other  taxes  affecting  the  same  sources 
of  income.  As  Secretary  of  State  for  India  I  had  to  deal 
with  this  question  along  with  my  colleagues  in  the  Indian 
Council,  and  the  result  we  arrived  at  was  embodied  in  a 
despatch  which  laid  dowTn  the  principles  applicable  to 
the  case  so  clearly  that  in  India  it  appears  to  have  been 
accepted  as  conclusive.  The  Land  Tax  was  a  special 
impost  upon  rent.  The  promise  was  that  this  special 
impost  should  never  be  increased  5  or,  in  its  own  words, 
that  there  should  be  no  u  augmentation  of  the  public 
assessment  in  consequence  of  the  improvement  of  their 
estates.”  It  was  not  a  promise  that  no  other  taxes  should 
ever  be  raised  affecting  the  same  sources  of  income,  pro¬ 
vided  such  taxes  were  not  special,  but  affected  all  other 
sources  of  income  equally.  On  this  interpretation  the 
growing  wealth  of  Bengal  accruing  under  the  Permanent 
Settlement  would  remain  accessible  to  taxation  along  with 
the  growing  wealth  derived  from  all  other  kinds  of  prop¬ 
erty,  but  not  otherwise.  There  was  to  be  no  confiscation 
by  the  State  of  the  increased  value  of  land,  any  more  than 
of  the  increased  value  of  other  kinds  of  property,  on  the 
pretext  that  this  increase  was  unearned.  On  the  other 


38 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


hand,  the  State  did  not  exempt  that  increased  value  from 
any  taxation  which  might  be  levied  also  and  equally  from 
all  the  rest  of  the  community.  In  this  way  we  reconciled 
and  established  two  great  principles  which  to  short-sighted 
theorists  may  seem  antagonistic.  One  of  these  principles 
is  that  it  is  the  interest  of  every  community  to  give  equal 
and  absolute  security  to  every  one  of  its  members  in  his 
pursuit  of  wealth ;  the  other  is  that  when  the  public  inter¬ 
ests  demand  a  public  revenue  all  forms  of  wealth  should 
be  equally  accessible  to  taxation. 

It  would  have  saved  us  all,  both  in  London  and  in 
Calcutta,  much  anxious  and  careful  reasoning  if  we  could 
only  have  persuaded  ourselves  that  the  Government  of 
1793  could  not  possibly  bind  the  Government  of  1870. 
It  would  have  given  us  a  still  wider  margin  if  we  had  been 
able  to  believe  that  no  faith  can  be  pledged  to  landowners, 
and  that  we  had  a  divine  right  to  seize  not  only  all  the 
wealth  of  the  Zemindars  of  Bengal,  but  also  all  the 
property  derived  from  the  same  source  which  had  grown 
up  since  1793,  and  has  now  become  distributed  and 
absorbed  among  a  great  number  of  intermediate  sharers, 
standing  between  the  actual  cultivator  and  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  those  to  whom  the  promise  was  originally  given. 
But  one  doctrine  has  been  tenaciously  held  by  the  “  stupid 
English  people’7  in  the  government  of  their  Eastern 
Empire,  and  that  is,  that  our  honor  is  the  greatest  of  our 
possessions,  and  that  absolute  trust  in  that  honor  is  one 
of  the  strongest  foundations  of  our  power. 

In  this  paper  it  has  not  been  my  aim  to  argue.  A 
simple  record  and  exposure  of  a  few  of  the  results  arrived 
at  by  Mr.  Henry  George,  has  been  all  that  I  intended  to 
accomplish.  To  see  what  are  the  practical  consequences 
of  any  train  of  reasoning  is  so  much  gained.  And  there 
are  cases  in  which  this  gain  is  everything.  In  mathe¬ 
matical  reasoning  the  u  reduction  to  absurdity  ”  is  one  of 


THE  PROPHET  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 


39 


the  most  familiar  methods  of  disproof.  In  political  rea¬ 
soning  the  u  reduction  to  iniquity  ”  ought  to  be  of  equal 
value.  And  if  it  is  not  found  to  bo  so  with  all  minds, 
this  is  because  of  a  peculiarity  in  human  character  which 
is  the  secret  of  all  its  corruption,  and  of  the  most  dreadful 
forms  in  which  that  corruption  has  been  exhibited.  In 
pursuing  another  investigation  I  have  lately  had  occasion 
to  observe  upon  the  contrast  which,  in  this  respect,  exists 
between  our  moral  and  our  purely  intellectual  faculties* 
Our  Reason  is  so  constituted  in  respect  to  certain  funda¬ 
mental  truths  that  those  truths  are  intuitively  perceived, 
and  any  rejection  of  them  is  at  once  seen  to  be  absurd. 
But  in  the  far  higher  sphere  of  Morals  and  Religion,  it 
would  seem  that  we  have  no  equally  secure  moorings  to 
duty  and  to  truth.  There  is  no  consequence,  however 
hideous  or  cruel  its  application  may  be,  that  men  have 
been  prevented  from  accepting  because  of  such  hideous¬ 
ness  or  of  such  cruelty.  Nothing,  however  shocking,  is 
quite  sure  to  shock  them.  If  it  follows  from  some  false 
belief,  or  from  some  fallacious  verbal  proposition,  they 
will  entertain  it,  and  sometimes  will  even  rejoice  in  it 
with  a  savage  fanaticism.  It  is  a  fact  that  none  of  us 
should. ever  forget  that  the  moral  faculties  of  Man  do  not 
as  certainly  revolt  against  iniquity  as  his  reasoning  facul¬ 
ties  do  revolt  against  absurdity.  All  history  is  crowded 
with  illustrations  of  this  distinction,  and  it  is  the  only 
explanation  of  a  thousand  horrors.  There  has  seldom 
been  such  a  curious  example  as  the  immoral  teachings  of 
Mr.  Henry  George.  Here  we  have  a  man  who  probably 
sincerely  thinks  he  is  a  Christian,  and  who  sets  up  as  a 
philosopher,  but  who  is  not  the  least  shocked  by  conse¬ 
quences  which  abolish  the  Decalogue,  and  deny  the  pri¬ 
mary  obligations  both  of  public  and  of  private  honor.  This 


*  “Unity  of  Nature, ”  Chapter  X.,  pp.  440-445. 


40 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


is  a  very  curious  phenomenon,  and  well  deserving  of  some 
closer  investigation.  What  are  the  erroneous  data— what 
are  the  abstract  propositions— which  so  overpower  the 
Moral  Sense,  and  coming  from  the  sphere  of  Speculation 
dictate  such  flagitious  recommendations  in  the  sphere  of 
Conduct?  To  this  question  I  may  perhaps  return,  not 
with  exclusive  reference  to  the  writings  of  one  man,  but 
with  reference  to  the  writings  of  many  others  who  have 
tried  to  reduce  to  scientific  form  the  laws  which  govern 
the  social  de  velopments  of  our  race,  and  who  in  doing  so 
have  forgotten— strangely  forgotten— some  of  the  most 
fundamental  facts  of  Nature. 


II. 

THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 

BY  HENRY  GEORGE. 

“  TN  this  paper  it  has  not  "been  my  aim  to  argue,”  says 
JL  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  in  concluding  his  article  entitled 
“The  Prophet  of  San  Francisco.”  It  is  generally  waste 
of  time  to  reply  to  those  who  do  not  argue.  Yet,  partly 
because  of  my  respect  for  other  writings  of  his,  and  partly 
because  of  the  ground  to  which  he  invites  me,  I  take  the 
first  opportunity  I  have  had  to  reply  to  the  Duke. 

In  doing  so,  let  me  explain  the  personal  incident  to 
which  he  refers,  and  which  he  has  seemingly  misunder¬ 
stood.  In  sending  the  Duke  of  Argyll  a  copy  of  “  Prog¬ 
ress  and  Poverty,”  I  intended  no  impertinence,  and  was 
unconscious  of  any  impropriety.  Instead,  I  paid  him  a 
high  compliment.  For,  as  I  stated  in  an  accompanying 
note,  I  sent  him  my  book  not  only  to  mark  my  esteem  for 
the  author  of  “  The  Reign  of  Law,”  but  because  I  thought 
him  a  man  superior  to  his  accidents. 

I  am  still  conscious  of  the  profit  I  derived  from  “  The 
Reign  of  Law,”  and  can  still  recall  the  pleasure  it  gave 
me.  What  attracted  me,  however,  was  not,  as  the  Duke 
seems  to  think,  what  he  styles  his  “nonsense  chapter.” 
On  the  contrary,  the  notion  that  it  is  necessary  to  impose 
restrictions  upon  labor  seems  to  me  strangely  incongruous, 
not  only  with  free  trade,  but  with  the  idea  of  the  domi- 


42 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


nance  and  harmony  of  natural  laws,  which  in  preceding 
chapters  he  so  well  develops.  Where  such  restrictions  as 
Factory  Acts  seem  needed  in  the  interests  of  labor,  the 
seeming  need,  to  my  mind,  arises  from  previous  restric¬ 
tions,  in  the  removal  of  which,  and  not  in  further  restric¬ 
tions,  the  true  remedy  is  to  be  sought.  What  attracted 
me  in  “  The  Reign  of  Law’7  was  the  manner  in  which  the 
Duke  points  out  the  existence  of  physical  laws  and  adapta¬ 
tions  which  compel  the  mind  that  thinks  upon  them  to 
the  recognition  of  creative  purpose.  In  this  way  the 
Duke’s  book  was  to  me  useful  and  grateful,  as  I  doubt 
not  it  has  been  to  many  others. 

My  book,  I  thought,  might,  in  return,  be  useful  and 
grateful  to  the  Duke — might  give  him  something  of  that 
“ immense  and  instinctive  pleasure”  of  which  he  had 
spoken  as  arising  from  the  recognition  of  the  grand 
simplicity  and  unspeakable  harmony  of  universal  law. 
And  in  the  domain  in  which  I  had,  as  I  believed,  done 
something  to  point  out  the  reign  of  law  this  pleasure  is 
perhaps  even  more  intense  than  in  that  of  which  he  had 
written.  For  in  physical  laws  we  recognize  only  intelli¬ 
gence,  and  can  but  trust  that  infinite  wisdom  implies 
infinite  goodness.  But  in  social  laws  he  who  looks  may 
recognize  beneficence  as  well  as  intelligence  •  may  see  that 
the  moral  perceptions  of  men  are  perceptions  of  realities ; 
and  find  ground  for  an  abiding  faith  that  this  short  life 
does  not  bound  the  destiny  of  the  human  soul.  I  knew 
the  Duke  of  Argyll  then  only  by  his  book.  I  had  never 
been  in  Scotland,  or  learned  the  character  as  a  landlord 
he  bears  there.  I  intended  to  pay  a  tribute  and  give  a 
pleasure  to  a  citizen  of  the  republic  of  letters,  not  to 
irritate  a  landowner.  I  did  not  think  a  trumpery  title 
and  a  patch  of  ground  could  fetter  a  mind  that  had  com¬ 
muned  with  Nature  and  busied  itself  with  causes  and 
beginnings.  My  mistake  was  that  of  ignorance.  Since 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


43 


the  Duke  of  Argyll  has  publicly  called  attention  to  it,  I 
thus  publicly  apologize. 

The  Duke  declares  it  has  not  been  his  aim  to  argue. 
This  is  clear.  I  wish  it  were  as  clear  it  had  not  been  his 
aim  to  misrepresent.  He  seems  to  have  written  for  those 
who  have  never  read  the  books  he  criticizes.  But  as  those 
who  have  done  so  constitute  a  very  respectable  part  of 
the  reading  world,  I  can  leave  his  misrepresentations  to 
take  care  of  themselves,  confident  that  the  incredible 
absurdity  he  attributes  to  my  reasonings  will  be  seen,  by 
whoever  reads  my  books,  to  belong  really  to  the  Duke’s 
distortions.  In  what  I  have  here  to  say  I  prefer  to  meet 
him  upon  his  own  ground  and  to  hold  to  the  main  ques¬ 
tion*  I  accept  the  “  reduction  to  iniquity.” 

Strangely  enough,  the  Duke  expresses  distrust  of  the 
very  tribunal  to  which  he  appeals.  “  It  is  a  fact,”  he  tells 
us,  “that  none  of  us  should  ever  forget,  that  the  moral 
faculties  do  not  as  certainly  revolt  against  iniquity  as  the 
reasoning  faculties  do  against  absurdity.”  If  that  be  the 
case,  why,  then,  may  I  a^k,  is  the  Duke’s  whole  article 
addressed  to  the  moral  faculties  ?  Why  does  he  talk  about 
right  and  wrong,  about  justice  and  injustice,  about  honor 
and  dishonor ;  about  my  “  immoral  doctrines  ”  and  “  prof¬ 
ligate  conclusions,”  “the  unutterable  meanness  of  the 
gigantic  villainy”  I  advocate?  why  style  me  “such  a 
Preacher  of  Unrighteousness  as  the  world  has  never  seen,” 
and  so  on?  If  the  Duke  will  permit  me  I  will  tell  him, 
for  in  all  probability  he  does  not  know— he  himself,  to 
paraphrase  his  own  words,  being  a  good  example  of  how 
men  who  sometimes  set  up  as  philosophers  and  deny  laws 

*  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  anything  of  India  further  than 
to  remark  that  the  essence  of  nationalization  of  land  is  not  in  the 
collection  of  rent  by  government,  but  in  its  utilization  for  the  benefit 
of  the  people.  Nor  on  the  subject  of  public  debts  is  it  worth  while 
here  to  add  anything  to  what  I  have  said  in  “Social  Problems.” 


44 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


of  the  human  mind  are  themselves  unconsciously  subject 
to  those  very  laws.  The  Duke  appeals  to  moral  percep¬ 
tions  for  the  same  reason  that  impels  all  men,  good  or 
bad,  learned  or  simple,  to  appeal  to  moral  perceptions 
whene  ver  they  become  warm  in  argument ;  and  this  reason 
is,  the  instinctive  feeling  that  the  moral  sense  is  higher 
and  truer  than  the  intellectual  sense;  that  the  moral 
faculties  do  more  certainly  revolt  against  iniquity  than 
the  intellectual  faculties  against  absurdity.  The  Duke 
appeals  to  the  moral  sense,  because  he  instinctively  feels 
that  with  all  men  its  decisions  have  the  highest  sanction  • 
and  if  he  afterward  seeks  to  weaken  its  authority,  it  is 
because  this  very  moral  sense  whispers  to  him  that  his 
case  is  not  a  good  one. 

My  opinion  as  to  the  relative  superiority  of  the  moral 
and  intellectual  perceptions  is  the  reverse  of  that  stated 
by  the  Duke.  It  seems  to  me  certain  that  the  moral  facul¬ 
ties  constitute  a  truer  guide  than  the  intellectual  faculties, 
and  that  what,  in  reality,  we  should  never  forget,  is  not 
that  the  moral  faculties  are  untrustworthy,  but  that  those 
faculties  may  be  dulled  by  refusal  to  heed  them,  and 
distorted  by  the  promptings  of  selfishness.  So  true,  so 
ineradicable  is  the  moral  sense,  that  where  selfishness  or 
passion  would  outrage  it,  the  intellectual  faculties  are 
always  called  upon  to  supply  excuse.  No  unjust  war  was 
ever  begun  without  some  pretense  of  asserting  right  or 
redressing  wrong,  or,  despite  themselves,  of  doing  some 
good  to  the  conquered.  No  petty  thief  but  makes  for 
himself  some  justification.  It  is  doubtful  if  any  deliberate 
wrong  is  ever  committed,  it  is  certain  no  wrongful  course 
of  action  is  ever  continued,  without  the  framing  of  some 
theory  which  may  dull  or  placate  the  moral  sense. 

And  while  as  to  things  apprehended  solely  by  the  intel¬ 
lectual  faculties  the  greatest  diversities  of  perception  have 
obtained  and  still  obtain  among  men,  and  those  percep- 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


45 


tions  constantly  change  with  the  growth  of  knowledge, 
there  is  a  striking  consensus  of  moral  perceptions.  In 
all  stages  of  social  development,  and  under  all  forms  of 
religion,  no  matter  how  distorted  by  selfish  motives  and 
intellectual  perversions,  truth,  justice,  and  benevolence 
have  ever  been  esteemed,  and  all  our  intellectual  progress 
has  given  us  no  higher  moral  ideals  than  have  obtained 
among  primitive  peoples.  The  very  distortions  of  the 
moral  sense,  the  apparent  differences  in  the  moral  stan¬ 
dards  of  different  times  and  peoples,  do  but  show  essential 
unity.  Wherever  moral  perceptions  have  differed  or  do 
differ  the  disturbance  may  be  traced  to  causes  which, 
originating  in  selfishness  and  perpetuated  by  intellectual 
perversions,  have  distorted  or  dulled  the  moral  faculty. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  Creator,  whom  both  the  Duke 
of  Argyll  and  myself  recognize  behind  physical  and  mental 
laws,  has  not  left  us  to  grope  our  way  in  darkness,  but 
has,  indeed,  given  us  a  light  by  which  our  steps  may  be 
safely  guided— a  compass  by  which,  in  all  degrees  of 
intellectual  development,  the  way  to  the  highest  good 
may  be  surely  traced.  But  just  as  the  compass  by  which 
the  mariner  steers  his  course  over  the  trackless  sea  in  the 
blackest  night,  may  be  disturbed  by  other  attractions, 
may  be  misread  or  clogged,  so  is  it  with  the  moral  sense. 
This  evidently  is  not  a  world  in  which  men  must  be 
either  wise  or  good,  but  a  world  in  which  they  may  bring 
about  good  or  evil  as  they  use  the  faculties  given  them. 

I  speak  of  this  because  the  recognition  of  the  supremacy 
and  certainty  of  the  moral  faculties  seems  to  me  to  throw 
light  upon  problems  otherwise  dark,  rather  than  because 
it  is  necessary  here,  since  I  admit  even  more  unreservedly 
than  the  Duke  the  competence  of  the  tribunal  before 
which  he  cites  me.  I  am  willing  to  submit  every  question 
of  political  economy  to  the  test  of  ethics.  So  far  as  I  can 
see  there  is  no  social  law  which  does  not  conform  to  moral 


46 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


law,  and  no  social  question  which  cannot  be  determined 
more  quickly  and  certainly  by  appeal  to  moral  perceptions 
than  by  appeal  to  intellectual  perceptions.  Nor  can  there 
be  any  dispute  between  us  as  to  the  issue  to  be  joined. 
He  charges  me  with  advocating  violation  of  the  moral  law 
in  proposing  robbery.  I  agree  that  robbery  is  a  violation 
of  the  moral  law,  and  is  therefore,  without  further  inquiry, 
to  be  condemned. 

As  to  what  constitutes  robbery,  it  is,  we  will  both  agree, 
the  taking  or  withholding  from  another  of  that  which 
rightfully  belongs  to  him.  That-  which  rightfully  belongs 
to  him,  be  it  observed,  not  that  which  legally  belongs  to 
him.  As  to  what  extent  human  law  may  create  rights  is 
beside  this  discussion,  for  what  I  propose  is  to  change, 
not  to  violate  human  law.  Such  change  the  Duke  declares 
would  be  unrighteous.  He  thus  appeals  to  that  moral  law 
which  is  before  and  above  all  human  laws,  and  by  which 
all  human  laws  are  to  be  judged.  Let  me  insist  upon  this 
point.  Landholders  must  elect  to  try  their  case  either  by 
human  law  or  by  moral  law.  If  they  say  that  land  is 
rightfully  property  because  made  so  by  human  law,  they 
cannot  charge  those  who  would  change  that  law  with 
advocating  robbery.  But  if  they  charge  that  such  change 
in  human  law  would  be  robbery,  then  they  must  show 
that  land  is  rightfully  property  irrespective  of  human  law. 

For  land  is  not  of  that  species  of  things  to  which  the 
presumption  of  rightful  property  attaches.  This  does 
attach  to  things  that  are  properly  termed  wealth,  and  that 
are  the  produce  of  labor.  Such  things,  in  their  beginning, 
must  have  an  owner,  as  they  originate  in  human  exertion, 
and  the  right  of  property  which  attaches  to  them  springs 
from  the  manifest  natural  right  of  every  individual  to 
himself  and  to  the  benefit  of  his  own  exertions.  This  is 
the  moral  basis  of  property,  which  makes  certain  things 
rightfully  property  totally  irrespective  of  human  law. 


THE  “KEDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY/’ 


47 


The  Eighth  Commandment  does  not  derive  its  validity 
from  human  enactment.  It  is  written  upon  the  facts  of 
nature  and  self-evident  to  the  perceptions  of  men.  If 
there  were  hut  two  men  in  the  world,  the  fish  which  either 
of  them  took  from  the  sea,  the  beast  which  he  captured 
in  the  chase,  the  fruit  which  he  gathered,  or  the  hut  which 
he  erected,  would  be  his  rightful  property,  which  the  other 
could  not  take  from  him  without  violation  of  the  moral 
law.  But  how  could  either  of  them  claim  the  wrnrld  as 
his  rightful  property?  Or  if  they  agreed  to  divide  the 
world  between  them,  what  moral  right  could  their  compact 
give  as  against  the  next  man  who  came  into  the  world? 

It  is  needless,  however,  to  insist  that  property  in  land 
rests  only  on  human  enactment,  which  may,  at  any  time, 
be  changed  without  violation  of  moral  law.  No  one  seri¬ 
ously  asserts  any  other  derivation.  It  is  sometimes  said 
that  property  in  land  is  derived  from  appropriation.  But 
those  who  say  this  do  not  really  mean  it.  Appropriation 
can  give  no  right.  The  man  who  raises  a  cupful  of  water 
from  a  river,  acquires  a  right  to  that  cupful,  and  no  one 
may  rightfully  snatch  it  from  his  hand ;  but  this  right  is 
derived  from  labor,  not  from  appropriation.  How  could 
he  acquire  a  right  to  the  river,  by  merely  appropriating  _ 
it?  Columbus  did  not  dream  of  appropriating  the  New 
World  to  himself  and  his  heirs,  and  wrould  have  been 
deemed  a  lunatic  had  he  done  so.  Nations  and  princes 
divided  America  between  them,  but  by  “  right  of  strength.” 
This,  and  this  alone,  it  is  that  gives  any  validity  to  appro¬ 
priation.  And  this,  evidently,  is  what  they  really  mean 
who  talk  of  the  right  given  by  appropriation. 

This  “  right  of  conquest,”  this  power  of  the  strong,  is 
the  only  basis  of  property  in  land  to  which  the  Duke  ven¬ 
tures  to  refer.  He  does  so  in  asking  whether  the  exclusive 
right  of  ownership  to  the  territory  of  California,  which, 
according  to  him,  I  attribute  to  the  existing  people  of 


48 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


California,  does  not  rest  upon  conquest,  and  “  if  so,  may 
it  not  be  as  rightfully  acquired  by  any  who  are  strong 
enough  to  seize  it?”  To  this  I  reply  in  the  affirmative. 
If  exclusive  ownership  is  conferred  by  conquest,  then,  not 
merely,  as  the  Duke  says,  has  it  u  been  open  to  every  con¬ 
quering  army  and  every  occupying  host  in  all  ages  and 
in  all  countries  of  the  world  to  establish  a  similar  owner¬ 
ship  ;  ”  but  it  is  now  open,  and  whenever  the  masses  of 
Scotland,  who  have  the  power,  choose  to  take  from  the 
Duke  the  estates  he  now  holds,  he  cannot,  if  this  be  the 
basis  of  his  claim,  consistently  complain. 

But  I  have  never  admitted  that  conquest  or  any  other 
exertion  of  force  can  give  right.  Nor  have  I  ever  asserted, 
but  on  the  contrary  have  expressly  denied,  that  the  present 
population  of  California,  or  any  other  country,  have  any 
exclusive  right  of  ownership  in  the  soil,  or  can  in  any 
way  acquire  such  a  right.  I  hold  that  the  present,  the 
past,  or  the  future  population  of  California,  or  of  any 
other  country,  have  not,  have  not  had,  and  cannot  have, 
any  right  save  to  the  use  of  the  soil,  and  that  as  to  this 
their  rights  are  equal.  I  hold  with  Thomas  Jefferson, 
that  u  the  earth  belongs  in  usufruct  to  the  living,  and  that 
the  dead  have  no  power  or  right  over  it.”  I  hold  that  the 
land  was  not  created  for  one  generation  to  dispose  of,  but 
as  a  dwelling-place  for  all  generations ;  that  the  men  of 
the  present  are  not  bound  by  any  grants  of  land  the  men 
of  the  past  may  have  made,  and  cannot  grant  away  the 
rights  of  the  men  of  the  future.  I  hold  that  if  all  the 
people  of  California,  or  any  other  country,  were  to  unite 
in  any  disposition  of  the  land  which  ignored  the  equal 
right  of  one  of  their  number,  they  would  be  doing  a 
wrong  j  and  that  even  if  they  could  grant  away  their  own 
rights,  they  are  powerless  to  impair  the  natural  rights  of 
their  children.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  I  hold  that 
the  titles  to  the  ownership  of  land  which  the  government 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


49 


of  the  United  States  is  now  granting  are  of  no  greater 
moral  validity  than  the  land  titles  of  the  British  Isles, 
which  rest  historically  upon  the  forcible  spoliation  of  the 
masses. 

How  ownership  of  land  was  acquired  in  the  past  can 
have  no  bearing  upon  the  question  of  how  we  should  treat 
land  now  j  yet  the  inquiry  is  interesting,  as  showing  the 
nature  of  the  institution.  The  Duke  of  Argyll  has  written 
a  great  deal  about  the  rights  of  landowners,  but  has  never, 
I  think,  told  us  anything  of  the  historical  derivation  of 
these  rights.  He  has  spoken  of  his  own  estates,  but  has 
nowhere  told  us  how  they  came  to  be  his  estates.  This, 
I  know,  is  a  delicate  question,  and  on  that  account  I  will 
not  press  it.  But  while  a  man  ought  not  to  be  taunted 
with  the  sins  of  his  ancestors,  neither  ought  he  to  profit 
by  them.  And  the  general  fact  is,  that  the  exclusive 
ownership  of  land  has  everywhere  had  its  beginnings  in 
force  and  fraud,  in  selfish  greed  and  unscrupulous  cun¬ 
ning.  It  originated,  as  all  evil  institutions  originate,  in 
the  bad  passions  of  men,  not  in  their  perceptions  of  what 
is  right  or  their  experience  of  what  is  wise.  u  Human 
laws,”  the  Duke  tells  us,  u  are  evolved  out  of  human 
instincts,  and  in  direct  proportion  as  the  accepted  ideas 
on  which  they  rest  are  really  universal,  in  that  same  pro¬ 
portion  have  they  a  claim  to  be  regarded  as  really  natural, 
and  as  the  legitimate  expression  of  fundamental  truths.” 
If  he  would  thus  found  on  the  wide-spread  existence  of 
exclusive  property  in  land  an  argument  for  its  righteous¬ 
ness,  what,  may  I  ask  him,  will  he  say  to  the  much  stronger 
argument  that  might  thus  be  made  for  the  righteousness 
of  polygamy  or  chattel  slavery  ?  But  it  is  a  fact,  of  which 
I  need  hardly  more  than  remind  him,  though  less  well- 
informed  people  may  be  ignorant  of  it,  that  the  treatment 
of  land  as  individual  property  is  comparatively  recent, 
and  by  at  least  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  every 


50 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


thousand  of  those  who  have  lived  on  this  world,  has  never 
been  dreamed  of.  It  is  only  within  the  last  two  centuries 
that  it  has,  by  the  abolition  of  feudal  tenures,  and  the 
suppression  of  tribal  customs,  fully  obtained  among  our 
own  people.  In  fact,  even  among  us  it  has  hardly  yet 
reached  full  development.  For  not  only  are  we  still 
spreading  over  land  yet  unreduced  to  individual  owner¬ 
ship,  but  in  the  fragments  of  common  rights  which  yet 
remain  in  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  in  lawTs  and  customs, 
are  there  survivals  of  the  older  system.  The  first  and 
universal  perception  of  mankind  is  that  declared  by  the 
American  Indian  Chief,  Black  Hawk :  “  The  Great  Spirit 
has  told  me  that  land  is  not  to  be  made  property  like 
other  property.  The  earth  is  our  mother !  ”  And  this 
primitive  perception  of  the  right  of  all  men  to  the  use  of 
the  soil  from  which  all  must  live,  has  never  been  obscured 
save  by  a  long  course  of  usurpation  and  oppression. 

But  it  is  needless  for  me  to  discuss  such  questions  with 
the  Duke.  There  is  higher  ground  on  which  we  may  meet. 
He  believes  in  an  intelligent  Creator;  he  sees  in  Nature 
contrivance  and  intent ;  he  realizes  that  it  is  only  by  con¬ 
forming  his  actions  to  universal  law  that  man  can  master 
his  conditions  and  fulfil  his  destiny. 

Let  me,  then,  ask  the  Duke  to  look  around  him  in  the 
richest  country  of  the  world,  where  art,  science,  and  the 
power  that  comes  from  the  utilization  of  physical  laws  have 
been  carried  to  the  highest  point  yet  attained,  and  note 
how  few  of  this  population  can  avail  themselves  fully  of 
the  advantages  of  civilization.  Among  the  masses  the 
struggle  for  existence  is  so  intense  that  the  Duke  himself 
declares  it  necessary  by  law  to  restrain  parents  from 
working  their  children  to  disease  and  death  ! 

Let  him  consider  the  conditions  of  life  involved  in  such 
facts  as  this— conditions,  alas,  obvious  on  every  side,  and 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


51 


then  ask  himself  whether  this  is  in  accordance  with  the 
intent  of  Nature? 

The  Duke  of  Argyll  has  explained  to  me  in  his  u  Reign 
of  Law”  with  what  nice  adaptations  the  feathers  on  a 
bird’s  wing  are  designed  to  give  it  the  power  of  flight ;  he 
has  told  me  that  the  claw  on  the  wing  of  a  bat  is  intended 
for  it  to  climb  by.  Will  he  let  me  ask  him  to  look  in  the 
same  way  at  the  human  beings  around  him?  Consider, 
O  Duke !  the  little  children  growing  up  in  city  slums, 
toiling  in  mines,  working  in  noisome  rooms ;  the  young 
girls  chained  to  machinery  all  day  or  walking  the  streets 
by  night;  the  women  bending  over  forges  in  the  Black 
Country  or  turned  into  beasts  of  burden  in  the  Scottish 
Highlands;  the  men  who  all  life  long  must  spend  life’s 
energies  in  the  effort  to  maintain  life !  Consider  them 
as  you  have  considered  the  bat  and  the  bird.  If  the  hook 
of  the  bat  be  intended  to  climb  by  and  the  wing  of  the 
bird  be  intended  to  fly  by,  with  what  intent  have  human 
creatures  been  given  capabilities  of  body  and  mind  which 
under  conditions  that  exist  in  such  countries  as  Great 
Britain  only  a  few  of  them  can  use  and  enjoy  ? 

Thev  who  see  in  Nature  no  evidences  of  conscious, 
planning  intelligence  may  think  that  all  this  is  as  it  must 
be ;  but  who  that  recognizes  in  his  works  an  infinitely 
wise  Creator  can  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  infer  that  the 
wide  difference  between  obvious  intent  and  actual  accom¬ 
plishment  is  due,  not  to  the  clash  of  natural  laws,  but  to 
our  ignoring  them  ?  Nor  need  we  go  far  to  confirm  this 
inference.  The  moment  we  consider  in  the  largest  way 
what  kind  of  an  animal  man  is,  we  see  in  the  most  important 
of  social  adjustments  a  violation  of  Nature’s  intent  sufficient 
to  account  for  want  and  misery  and  aborted  development. 

Given  a  ship  sent  to  sea  with  abundant  provisions  for 
all  her  company.  What  must  happen  if  some  of  that 


52 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


company  take  possession  of  the  provisions  and  deny  to 
the  rest  any  share  ? 

Given  a  world  so  made  and  ordered  that  intelligent 
beings  placed  upon  it  may  draw  from  its  substance  an 
abundant  supply  for  all  physical  needs.  Must  there  not 
be  want  and  misery  in  such  a  world  if  some  of  those 
beings  make  its  surface  and  substance  their  exclusive 
property  and  deny  the  right  of  the  others  to  its  use  ?  Here, 
as  on  any  other  world  we  can  conceive  of,  two  and  two 
make  four,  and  when  all  is  taken  from  anything  nothing 
remains.  What  we  see  clearly  would  happen  on  any  other 
world,  does  happen  on  this. 

The  Duke  sees  intent  in  Nature.  So  do  I.  That  which 
conforms  to  this  intent  is  natural,  wise,  and  righteous. 
That  which  contravenes  it  is  unnatural,  foolish,  and  iniqui¬ 
tous.  In  this  we  agree.  Let  us  then  bring  to  this  test 
the  institution  which  I  arraign  and  he  defends. 

Place,  stripped  of  clothes,  a  landowner’s  baby  among 
a  dozen  workhouse  babies,  and  who  that  you  call  in  can 
tell  the  one  from  the  others?  Is  the  human  law  which 
declares  the  one  born  to  the  possession  of  a  hundred  thou¬ 
sand  acres  of  land,  while  the  others  have  no  right  to  a 
single  square  inch,  conformable  to  the  intent  of  Nature  or 
not?  Is  it,  judged  by  this  appeal,  na  ural  or  unnatural, 
wise  or  foolish,  righteous  or  iniquitous  ?  Put  the  bodies 
of  a  duke  and  a  peasant  on  a  dissecting-table,  and  bring, 
if  you  can,  the  surgeon  who,  by  laying  bare  the  brain  or 
examining  the  viscera,  can  tell  which  is  duke  and  which 
is  peasant  ?  Are  not  both  land  animals  of  the  same  kind, 
with  like  organs  and  like  needs?  Is  it  not  evidently  the 
intent  of  Nature  that  both  shall  live  on  land  and  use  land 
in  the  same  way  and  to  the  same  degree?  Is  there  not, 
therefore,  a  violation  of  the  intent  of  Nature  in  human 
laws  which  give  to  one  more  land  than  he  can  possibly 
use,  and  deny  any  land  to  the  other  ? 


THE  ‘‘REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


53 


Let  me  ask  the  Duke  to  consider,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  an  observer  of  Nature,  a  landless  man— a  being 
fitted  in  all  his  parts  and  powers  for  the  use  of  land, 
compelled  by  all  his  needs  to  the  use  of  land,  and  yet 
denied  all  right  to  land.  Is  he  not  as  unnatural  as  a  bird 
without  air,  a  fish  without  water?  And  can  anything 
more  clearly  violate  the  intent  of  Nature  than  the  human 
laws  which  produce  such  anomalies  ? 

I  call  upon  the  Duke  to  observe  that  what  Nature 
teaches  us  is  not  merely  that  men  were  equally  intended 
to  live  on  land,  and  to  use  land,  and  therefore  had  origi¬ 
nally  equal  rights  to  land,  but  that  they  are  noiv  equally 
intended  to  live  on  and  use  land,  and,  therefore,  that 
present  rights  to  land  are  equal.  It  is  said  that  fish 
deprived  of  light  will,  in  the  course  of  generations,  lose 
their  eyes,  and,  within  certain  narrow  limits,  it  is  certain 
that  Nature  does  conform  some  of  her  living  creatures  to 
conditions  imposed  by  man.  In  such  cases  the  intent  of 
Nature  may  be  said  to  have  conformed  to  that  of  man,  or 
rather  to  embrace  that  of  man.  But  there  is  no  such  con¬ 
forming  in  this  case.  The  intent  of  Nature,  that  all  human 
beings  should  use  land,  is  as  clearly  seen  in  the  children 
born  to-day  as  it  could  have  been  seen  in  any  past  genera¬ 
tion.  How  foolish,  then,  are  those  who  say  that  although 
the  right  to  land  was  originally  equal,  this  equality  of 
right  has  been  lost  by  the  action  or  sufferance  of  inter¬ 
mediate  generations !  How  illogical  those  who  declare 
that,  while  it  would  be  just  to  assert  this  equality  of  right 
in  the  laws  of  a  new  country  where  people  are  now  coming 
to  live,  it  would  be  unjust  to  conform  to  it  the  laws  of  a 
country  where  people  long  have  lived  !  Has  Nature  any¬ 
where  or  in  anything  shown  any  disposition  to  conform 
to  what  we  call  vested  interests?  Does  the  child  born 
in  an  old  country  differ  from  the  child  born  in  a  new 
country  ? 


54 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


Moral  right  and  wrong,  the  Duke  must  agree  with  me, 
are  not  matters  of  precedent.  The  repetition  of  a  wrong 
may  dull  the  moral  sense,  hut  will  not  make  it  right.  A 
robbery  is  no  less  a  robbery  the  thousand-millionth  time 
it  is  committed  than  it  was  the  first  time.  This  they  forgot 
who  declaring  the  slave-trade  piracy  still  legalized  the 
enslavement  of  those  already  enslaved.  This  they  forget 
who  admitting  the  equality  of  natural  rights  to  the  soil 
declare  that  it  would  be  unjust  now  to  assert  them.  For, 
as  the  keeping  of  a  man  in  slavery  is  as  much  a  violation 
of  natural  right  as  the  seizure  of  his  remote  ancestor,  so 
is  the  robbery  involved  in  the  present  denial  of  natural 
rights  to  the  soil  as  much  a  robbery  as  was  the  first  act 
of  fraud  or  force  which  violated  those  rights.  Those  who 
say  it  would  be  unjust  for  the  people  to  resume  their 
natural  rights  in  the  land  without  compensating  present 
holders,  confound  right  and  wrong  as  flagrantly  as  did 
they  who  held  it  a  crime  in  the  slave  to  run  away  without 
first  paying  his  owner  his  market  value.  They  have  never 
formed  a  clear  idea  of  what  property  in  land  means.  It 
means  not  merely  a  continuous  exclusion  of  some  people 
from  the  element  which  it  is  plainly  the  intent  of  Nature 
that  all  should  enjoy,  but  it  involves  a  continuous  confis¬ 
cation  of  labor  and  the  results  of  labor.  The  Duke  of 
Argyll  has,  we  say,  a  large  income  drawn  from  land.  But 
is  this  income  really  drawn  from  land?  Were  there  no 
men  on  his  land  what  income  could  the  Duke  get  from  it, 
save  such  as  his  own  hands  produced?  Precisely  as  if 
drawn  from  slaves,  this  income  represents  an  appropria¬ 
tion  of  the  earnings  of  labor.  The  effect  of  permitting 
the  Duke  to  treat  this  land  as  his  property,  is  to  make  so 
many  other  Scotsmen,  in  whole  or  in  part,  his  serfs— to 
compel  them  to  labor  for  him  without  pay,  or  to  enable 
him  to  take  from  them  their  earnings  without  return. 
Surely,  if  the  Duke  will  look  at  the  matter  in  this  way,  he 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


55 


must  see  that  the  iniquity  is  not  in  abolishing  an  institu¬ 
tion  which  permits  one  man  to  plunder  others,  but  in  con¬ 
tinuing  it.  He  must  see  that  any  claim  of  landowners  to 
compensation  is  not  a  claim  to  payment  for  what  they 
have  previously  taken,  but  to  payment  for  what  they 
might  yet  take,  precisely  as  would  be  the  claim  of  the 
slaveholder— the  true  character  of  which  appears  in  the 
fact  that  he  would  demand  more  compensation  for  a  strong 
slave,  out  of  whom  he  might  yet  get  much  work,  than  for 
a  decrepit  one,  out  of  whom  he  had  already  forced  nearly 
all  the  labor  he  could  yield. 

In  assuming  that  denial  of  the  justice  of  property  in 
land  is  the  prelude  to  an  attack  upon  all  rights  of  property, 
the  Duke  ignores  the  essential  distinction  between  land 
and  things  rightfully  property.  The  things  which  con¬ 
stitute  wealth,  or  capital  (which  is  wealth  used  in  produc¬ 
tion),  and  to  which  the  right  of  property  justly  attaches, 
are  produced  by  human  exertion.  Their  substance  is 
matter,  which  existed  before  man,  and  which  man  can 
neither  create  nor  destroy ;  but  their  essence— that  which 
gives  them  the  character  of  wealth— is  labor  'mpressed 
upon  or  modifying  the  conditions  of  matter.  Their  exis¬ 
tence  is  due  to  the  physical  exertion  of  man  and,  like  his 
physical  frame,  they  tend  constantly  to  return  again  to 
Nature’s  reservoirs  of  matter  and  force.  Land,  on  the 
contrary,  is  that  part  of  the  external  universe  on  which 
and  from  which  alone  man  can  live ;  that  reservoir  of 
matter  and  force  on  which  he  must  draw  for  all  his  needs. 
Its  existence  is  not  due  to  man,  but  is  referable  only  to 
that  Power  from  which  man  himself  proceeds.  It  con¬ 
tinues  while  he  comes  and  goes,  and  will  continue,  so  far 
as  we  can  see,  after  he  and  his  works  shall  disappear. 
Both  species  of  things  have  value,  but  the  value  of  the 
one  species  depends  upon  the  amount  of  labor  required 
for  their  production;  the  value  of  the  other  upon  the 


56 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


power  which  its  reduction  to  ownership  gives  of  com¬ 
manding  labor  or  the  results  of  labor  without  paying  any 
equivalent.  The  recognition  of  the  right  of  property  in 
wealth,  or  things  produced  by  labor,  is  thus  but  a  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  right  of  each  human  being  to  himself  and 
to  the  results  of  his  own  exertions  ;  but  the  recognition  of 
a  similar  right  of  property  in  land  is  necessarily  the 
impairment  and  denial  of  this  true  right  of  property. 

Turn  from  principles  to  facts.  Whether  as  to  national 
strength  or  national  character,  whether  as  to  the  number 
of  people  or  as  to  their  physical  and  moral  health,  whether 
as  to  the  production  of  wealth  or  as  to  its  equitable  dis¬ 
tribution,  the  fruits  of  the  primary  injustice  involved  in 
making  the  land,  on  which  and  from  which  a  whole  people 
must  live,  the  property  of  but  a  portion  of  their  number, 
are  everywhere  evil  and  nothing  but  evil. 

If  this  seems  to  any  too  strong  a  statement,  it  is  only 
because  they  associate  individual  ownership  of  land  with 
permanence  of  possession  and  security  of  improvements. 
These  are  necessary  to  the  proper  use  of  land,  but  so  far 
from  being  dependent  upon  individual  ownership  of  land, 
they  can  be  secured  without  it  in  greater  degree  than 
with  it.  This  will  be  evident  upon  reflection.  That  the 
existing  system  does  not  secure  permanence  of  possession 
and  security  of  improvements  in  anything  like  the  degree 
necessary  to  the  best  use  of  land,  is  obvious  everywhere, 
but  especiafly  obvious  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  owners 
of  land  and  the  users  of  land  are  for  the  most  part  distinct 
persons.  In  many  cases  the  users  of  land  have  no  security 
from  year  to  year,  a  logical  development  of  individual 
ownership  in  land  so  flagrantly  unjust  to  the  user  and  so 
manifestly  detrimental  to  the  community,  that  in  Ireland, 
where  this  system  most  largely  prevailed,  it  has  been 
deemed  necessary  for  the  State  to  interfere  in  the  most 
arbitrary  manner.  In  other  cases,  where  land  is  let  for 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


57 


years,  the  user  is  often  hampered  with  restrictions  that 
prevent  improvement  and  interfere  with  use,  and  at  the 
expiration  of  the  lease  he  is  not  merely  deprived  of  his 
improvements,  but  is  frequently  subjected  to  a  blackmail 
calculated  upon  the  inconvenience  and  loss  which  removal 
would  cost  him.  Wherever  I  have  been  in  Great  Britain, 
from  Land’s  End  to  John  O’Groat’s,  and  from  Liverpool 
to  Hull,  I  have  heard  of  improvements  prevented  and 
production  curtailed  from  this  cause — in  instances  which 
run  from  the  prevention  of  the  building  of  an  outhouse, 
the  painting  of  a  dwelling,  the  enlargement  of  a  chapel, 
the  widening  of  a  street,  or  the  excavation  of  a  dock,  to 
the  shutting  up  of  a  mine,  the  demolition  of  a  village,  the 
tearing  up  of  a  railway  track,  or  the  turning  of  land  from 
the  support  of  men  to  the  breeding  of  wild  beasts.  I 
could  cite  case  after  case,  each  typical  of  a  class,  but  it 
is  unnecessary.  How  largely  use  and  improvement  are 
restricted  and  prevented  by  private  ownership  of  land 
may  be  appreciated  only  by  a  few,  but  specific  cases  are 
known  to  all.  How  insecurity  of  improvement  and  pos¬ 
session  prevents  the  proper  maintenance  of  dwellings  in 
the  cities,  how  it  hampers  the  farmer,  how  it  fills  the 
shopkeeper  with  dread  as  the  expiration  of  his  lease  draws 
nigh,  have  been,  to  some  extent  at  least,  brought  out  by 
recent  discussions,  and  in  all  these  directions  propositions 
are  being  made  for  State  interference  more  or  less  violent, 
arbitrary,  and  destructive  of  the  sound  principle  that  men 
should  be  left  free  to  manage  their  own  property  as  they 
deem  best. 

Does  not  all  this  interference  and  demand  for  interfer¬ 
ence  show  that  private  property  in  land  does  not  produce 
good  results,  that  it  does  not  give  the  necessary  perma¬ 
nence  of  possession  and  security  of  improvements?  Is 
not  an  institution  that  needs  such  tinkering  fundamentally 
wrong?  That  property  in  land  must  have  different  treat- 


58 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


ment  from  other  property,  all,  or  nearly  all,  are  now 
agreed.  Does  not  this  prove  that  land  ought  not  to  be 
made  individual  property  at  all ;  that  to  treat  it  as  indi¬ 
vidual  property  is  to  weaken  and  endanger  the  true  rights 
of  property  ? 

The  Duke  of  Argyll  asserts  that  in  the  United  States 
we  have  made  land  private  property  because  we  have 
found  it  necessary  to  secure  settlement  and  improvement. 
Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth.  The  Duke 
might  as  well  urge  that  our  protective  tariff  is  a  proof  of 
the  necessity  of  “  protection.”  We  have  made  land  private 
property  because  we  are  but  transplanted  Europeans, 
wedded  to  custom,  and  have  followed  it  in  this  matter 
more  readily,  because  in  a  new  country  the  evils  that  at 
length  spring  from  private  property  in  land  are  less  obvi¬ 
ous,  while  a  much  larger  portion  of  the  people  seemingly 
profit  by  it— those  on  the  ground  gaining  at  the  expense 
of  those  who  come  afterward.  But  so  far  from  this 
treatment  of  land  in  the  United  States  having  promoted 
settlement  and  reclamation,  the  very  reverse  is  true. 
What  it  has  promoted  is  the  scattering  of  population  in 
the  country  and  its  undue  concentration  in  cities,  to  the 
disadvantage  of  production  and  the  lessening  of  comfort. 
It  has  forced  into  the  wilderness  families  for  whom  there 
was  plenty  of  room  in  well-settled  neighborhoods,  and 
raised  tenement-houses  amid  vacant  lots,  led  to  waste  of 
labor  and  capital  in  roads  and  railways  not  realty  needed, 
locked  up  natural  opportunities  that  otherwise  would  have 
been  improved,  made  tramps  and  idlers  of  men  who,  had 
they  found  it  in  time,  would  gladly  have  been  at  work, 
and  given  to  our  agriculture  a  character  that  is  rapidly 
and  steadily  decreasing  the  productiveness  of  the  soil. 

As  to  political  corruption  in  the  United  States,  of  which 
I  have  spoken  in  “  Social  Problems,”  and  to  which  the 
Duke  refers,  it  springs,  as  I  have  shown  in  that  book,  not 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


59 


from  excess  but  from  deficiency  of  democracy,  and  mainly 
from  our  failure  to  recognize  the  equality  of  natural  rights 
as  well  as  of  political  rights.  In  comparing  the  two  coun¬ 
tries,  it  may  be  well  to  note  that  the  exposure  of  abuses 
is  quicker  and  sharper  in  the  United  States  than  in  Eng¬ 
land,  and  that  to  some  extent  abuses  which  in  the  one 
country  appear  in  naked  deformity,  are  in  the  other 
hidden  by  the  ivy  of  custom  and  respectability.  But  be 
this  as  it  may,  the  reforms  I  propose,  instead  of  adding 
to  corruptive  forces,  would  destroy  prolific  sources  of  cor¬ 
ruption.  Our  “  protective  ”  tariff,  our  excise  taxes,  and 
demoralizing  system  of  local  taxation,  would,  in  their 
direct  and  indirect  effects,  corrupt  any  government,  even 
if  not  aided  by  the  corrupting  effects  of  the  grabbing  for 
public  lands.  But  the  first  step  I  propose  would  sweep 
away  these  corruptive  influences,  and  it  is  to  governments 
thus  reformed,  in  a  state  of  society  in  which  the  reckless 
struggle  for  wealth  would  be  lessened  by  the  elimination 
of  the  fear  of  want,  that  I  would  give,  not  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  land  or  the  direction  of  enterprise,  but  the 
administration  of  the  funds  arising  from  the  appropria¬ 
tion  of  economic  rent. 

The  Duke  styles  me  a  Pessimist.  But,  however  pessi¬ 
mistic  I  may  be  as  to  present  social  tendencies,  I  have  a 
firm  faith  in  human  nature.  I  am  convinced  that  the 
attainment  of  pure  government  is  merely  a  matter  of 
conforming  social  institutions  to  moral  law.  If  we  do 
this,  there  is,  to  my  mind,  no  reason  why  in  the  proper 
sphere  of  public  administration  we  should  not  find  men 
as  honest  and  as  faithful  as  when  acting  in  private  capa¬ 
cities. 

But  to  return  to  the  “  reduction  to  iniquity.”  Test  the 
institution  of  private  property  in  land  by  its  fruits  in  any 
country  where  it  exists.  Take  Scotland.  What,  there, 
are  its  results "?  That  wild  beasts  have  supplanted  human 


60 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


beings ;  that  glens  which  once  sent  forth  their  thousand 
fighting  men  are  now  tenanted  by  a  conple  of  game- 
keepers  ;  that  there  is  destitution  and  degradation  that 
would  shame  savages ;  that  little  children  are  stunted  and 
starved  for  want  of  proper  nourishment  5  that  women  are 
compelled  to  do  the  work  of  animals;  that  young  girls 
who  ought  to  be  fitting  themselves  for  wifehood  and 
motherhood  are  held  to  the  monotonous  toil  of  factories, 
while  others,  whose  fate  is  sadder  still,  prowl  the  streets ; 
that  while  a  few  Scotsmen  have  castles  and  palaces,  more 
than  a  third  of  Scottish  families  live  in  one  room  each, 
and  more  than  two-thirds  in  not  more  than  two  rooms 
each;  that  thousands  of  acres  are  kept  as  playgrounds 
for  strangers,  while  the  masses  have  not  enough  of  their 
native  soil  to  grow  a  flower,  are  shut  out  even  from  moor 
and  mountain ;  dare  not  take  a  trout  from  a  loch  or  a 
salmon  from  the  sea ! 

If  the  Duke  thinks  all  classes  have  gained  by  the  advance 
in  civilization,  let  him  go  into  the  huts  of  the  Highlands. 
There  he  may  find  countrymen  of  his,  men  and  women 
the  equals  in  natural  ability  and  in  moral  character  of  any 
peer  or  peeress  in  the  land,  to  whom  the  advance  of  our 
wondrous  age  has  brought  no  gain.  He  may  find  them 
tilling  the  ground  with  the  crooked  spade,  cutting  grain 
with  the  sickle,  threshing  it  with  the  flail,  winnowing  it 
by  tossing  it  in  the  air,  grinding  it  as  their  forefathers 
did  a  thousand  years  ago.  He  may  see  spinning-wheel 
and  distaff  yet  in  use,  and  the  smoke  from  the  fire  in  the 
center  of  the  hut  ascending  as  it  can  through  the  thatch, 
that  the  precious  heat,  which  costs  so  much  labor  to  pro¬ 
cure,  may  be  economized  to  the  utmost.  These  human 
beings  are  in  natural  parts  and  powers  just  such  human 
beings  as  may  be  met  at  a  royal  levee,  at  a  gathering  of 
scientists,  or  inventors,  or  captains  of  industry.  That 
they  so  live  and  so  work,  is  not  because  of  their  stupidity, 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


61 


but  because  of  their  poverty  —the  direct  and  indisputable 
result  of  the  denial  of  their  natural  rights.  They  have 
not  merely  been  prevented  from  participating  in  the 
u  general  advance/’  but  are  positively  worse  off  than  were 
their  ancestors  before  commerce  had  penetrated  the  High¬ 
lands  or  the  modern  era  of  labor-saving  inventions  had 
begun.  They  have  been  driven  from  the  good  land  to  the 
poor  land.  While  their  rents  have  been  increased,  their 
holdings  have  been  diminished,  and  their  pasturage  cut 
off.  Where  they  once  had  beasts,  they  cannot  now  eat  a 
chicken  or  keep  a  donkey,  and  their  women  must  do  work 
once  done  by  animals.  With  the  same  thoughtful  atten¬ 
tion  he  has  given  to  u  the  way  of  an  eagle  in  the  air,”  let 
the  Duke  consider  a  sight  he  must  have  seen  many  times 
—a  Scottish  woman  toiling  uphill  with  a  load  of  manure 
on  her  back.  Then  let  him  apply  the  u  reduction  to 
iniquity.” 

Let  the  Duke  not  be  content  with  feasting  his  eyes 
upon  those  comfortable  houses  of  the  large  farmers  which 
so  excite  his  admiration.  Let  him  visit  the  bothies  in 
which  farm-servants  are  herded  together  like  cattle,  and 
learn,  as  he  may  learn,  that  the  lot  of  the  Scottish  farm- 
servant— a  lot  from  which  no  industry  or  thrift  can  release 
him— is  to  die  in  the  workhouse  or  in  the  receipt  of  a 
parish  dole  if  he  be  so  unfortunate  as  to  outlive  his  ability 
to  work.  Or  let  him  visit  those  poor  broken-down  crea¬ 
tures  who,  enduring  everything  rather  than  accept  the 
humiliation  of  the  workhouse,  are  eking  out  their  last 
days  upon  a  few  shillings  from  the  parish,  supplemented 
by  the  charity  of  people  nearly  as  poor  as  themselves. 
Let  him  consider  them,  and  if  he  has  imagination  enough, 
put  himself  in  their  place.  Then  let  him  try  the  “reduc¬ 
tion  to  iniquity.” 

Let  the  Duke  go  to  Glasgow,  the  metropolis  of  Scotland, 
where,  in  underground  cellars  and  miserable  rooms,  he  will 


62 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


find  crowded  together  families  who  (some  of  them,  lest 
they  might  offend  the  deer)  have  been  driven  from  their 
native  soil  into  the  great  city  to  compete  with  each  other 
for  employment  at  any  price,  to  have  their  children 
debauched  by  daily  contact  with  all  that  is  vile.  Let  him 
some  Saturday  evening  leave  the  districts  where  the  richer 
classes  live,  wander  for  a  while  through  the  streets  ten¬ 
anted  by  working-people,  and  note  the  stunted  forms,  the 
pinched  features.  Vice,  drunkenness,  the  recklessness 
that  comes  when  hope  goes,  he  will  see  too.  How  should 
not  such  conditions  produce  such  effects?  But  he  will 
also  see,  if  he  chooses  to  look,  hard,  brave,  stubborn 
struggling— the  workman,  who,  do  his  best,  cannot  find 
steady  employment ;  the  breadwinner  stricken  with  illness ; 
the  widow  straining  to  keep  her  children  from  the  work- 
house.  Let  the  Duke  observe  and  reflect  upon  these 
things,  and  then  apply  the  “  reduction  to  iniquity.” 

Or,  let  him  go  to  Edinburgh,  flie  u  modern  Athens,”  of 
which  Scotsmen  speak  with  pride,  and  in  buildings  from 
whose  roofs  a  bowman  might  strike  the  spires  of  twenty 
churches,  he  will  find  human  beings  living  as  he  would  not 
keep  his  meanest  dog.  Let  him  toil  up  the  stairs  of  one 
of  those  monstrous  buildings,  let  him  enter  one  of  those 
“  dark  houses,”  let  him  close  the  door,  and  in  the  blackness 
think  what  life  must  be  in  such  a  place.  Then  let  him  try 
the  “reduction  to  iniquity.”  And  if  he  go  to  that  good 
charity  (but,  alas,  how  futile  is  Charity  without  Justice!) 
where  little  children  are  kept  while  their  mothers  are  at 
work,  and  children  are  fed  who  would  otherwise  go  hungry, 
he  may  see  infants  whose  limbs  are  shrunken  from  want 
of  nourishment.  Perhaps  they  may  tell  him,  as  they  told 
me,  of  that  little  girl,  barefooted,  ragged,  and  hungry, 
who,  when  they  gave  her  bread,  raised  her  eyes  and 
clasped  her  hands,  and  thanked  our  Father  in  Heaven 
for  his  bounty  to  her.  They  who  told  me  that  never 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


63 


dreamed,  I  think,  of  its  terrible  meaning.  But  I  ask  the 
Duke  of  Argyll,  did  that  little  child,  thankful  for  that 
poor  dole,  get  what  our  Father  provided  for  her  ?  Is  he 
so  niggard?  If  not,  what  is  it,  who  is  it,  that  stands 
between  such  children  and  our  Father’s  bounty  ?  If  it  be 
an  institution,  is  it  not  our  duty  to  God  and  to  our  neigh¬ 
bor  to  rest  not  till  we  destroy  it  ?  If  it  be  a  man,  were  it 
not  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his 
neck  and  he  were  cast  into  the  depths  of  the  sea  ? 

There  can  be  no  question  of  overpopulation— no  pre¬ 
tense  that  Nature  has  brought  more  men  into  being  than 
she  has  made  provision  for.  Scotland  surely  is  not  over- 
populated.  Much  land  is  unused  ;  much  land  is  devoted 
to  lower  uses,  such  as  the  breeding  of  game  and  the 
raising  of  cattle,  that  might  be  devoted  to  higher  uses ; 
there  are  mineral  resources  untouched ;  the  wealth  drawn 
from  the  sea  is  but  a  small  part  of  what  might  be  drawn. 
But  it  is  idle  to  argue  this  point.  Neither  in  Scotland, 
nor  in  any  other  country,  can  any  excess  of  population 
over  the  power  of  Nature  to  provide  for  them  be  shown. 
The  poverty  so  painful  in  Scotland  is  manifestly  no  more 
due  to  overpopulation  than  the  crowding  of  two-thirds  of 
the  families  into  houses  of  one  or  two  rooms  is  due  to 
want  of  space  to  build  houses  upon.  And  just  as  the 
crowding  of  people  into  insufficient  lodgings  is  directly 
due  to  institutions  which  permit  men  to  hold  vacant  land 
needed  for  buildings  until  they  can  force  a  monopoly  price 
from  those  wishing  to  build,  so  is  the  poverty  of  the 
masses  due  to  the  fact  that  they  are  in  like  manner  shut 
out  from  the  opportunities  Nature  has  provided  for  the 
employment  of  their  labor  in  the  satisfaction  of  their 
wants. 

Take  the  Island  of  Skye  as  illustrating  on  a  small  scale 
the  cause  of  poverty  throughout  Scotland.  The  people  of 
Skye  are  poor— very  poor.  Is  it  because  there  are  too 


64 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


many  of  them?  An  explanation  lies  nearer— an  explana¬ 
tion  which  would  account  for  poverty  no  matter  how 
small  the  population.  If  there  were  but  one  man  in  Skye, 
and  if  all  that  he  produced,  save  enough  to  give  him  a 
bare  living,  were  periodically  taken  from  him  and  carried 
off,  he  would  necessarily  be  poor.  That  is  the  condition 
of  the  people  of  Skye.  With  a  population  of  some  seven¬ 
teen  thousand  there  are,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  twenty- 
four  landowners.  The  few  proprietors  who  live  upon  the 
island,  though  they  do  nothing  to  produce  wealth,  have 
fine  houses,  and  live  luxuriously,  while  the  greater  por¬ 
tion  of  the  rents  are  carried  off  to  be  spent  abroad.  It  is 
not  merely  that  there  is  thus  a  constant  drain  upon  the 
wealth  produced ;  but  that  the  power  of  producing  wealth 
is  enormously  lessened.  As  the  people  are  deprived  of 
the  power  to  accumulate  capital,  production  is  carried  on 
in  the  most  primitive  style,  and  at  the  greatest  disadvan¬ 
tage. 

If  there  are  really  too  many  people  in  Scotland,  why 
not  have  the  landlords  emigrate?  They  are  not  merely 
best  fitted  to  emigrate,  but  would  give  the  greatest  relief. 
They  consume  most,  waste  most,  carry  off  most,  while  they 
produce  least.  As  landlords,  in  fact,  they  produce  nothing. 
They  merely  consume  and  destroy.  Economically  con¬ 
sidered,  they  have  the  same  effect  upon  production  as 
bands  of  robbers  or  pirate  fleets.  To  national  wealth  they 
are  as  weevils  in  the  grain,  as  rats  in  the  storehouse,  as 
ferrets  in  the  poultry-yard. 

The  Duke  of  Argyll  complains  of  what  he  calls  my 
“  assumption  that  owners  of  land  are  not  producers,  and 
that  rent  does  not  represent,  or  represents  in  a  very  minor 
degree,  the  interest  of  capital.”  The  Duke  will  justify  his 
complaint  if  he  will  show  how  the  owning  of  land  can 
produce  anything.  Failing  in  this,  he  must  admit  that 
though  the  same  person  may  be  a  laborer,  capitalist,  and 


THE  “SEDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


65 


landowner,  the  owner  of  land,  as  an  owner  of  land,  is  not 
a  producer.  And  surely  he  knows  that  the  term  “rent” 
as  used  in  political  economy,  and  as  I  use  it  in  the  books 
he  criticizes,  never  represents  the  interest  on  capital,  but 
refers  alone  to  the  sum  paid  for  the  use  of  the  inherent 
capabilities  of  the  soil. 

As  illustrating  the  usefulness  of  landlords,  the  Duke 
says : 

My  own  experience  now  extends  over  a  period  of  the  best  part  of 
forty  years.  During  that  time  I  have  built  more  than  fifty  home¬ 
steads  complete  for  man  and  beast ;  I  Ijave  drained  and  reclaimed 
many  hundreds,  and  inclosed  some  thousands,  of  acres.  In  this  sense 
I  have  “added  house  to  house  and  field  to  field,”  not— as  pulpit 
orators  have  assumed  in  similar  cases— that  I  might  “dwell  alone  in 
the  land,”  but  that  the  cultivating  class  might  live  more  comfortably, 
and  with  better  appliances  for  increasing  the  produce  of  the  soil. 

And  again  he  says  that  during  the  last  four  years  he 
has  spent  on  one  property  £40,000  in  the  improvement  of 
the  soil. 

I  fear  that  in  Scotland  the  Duke  of  Argyll  has  been 
“hiding  his  light  under  a  bushel,”  for  his  version  of  the 
way  in  which  he  has  “  added  house  to  house  and  field  to 
field”  differs  much  from  that  which  common  Scotsmen 
give.  But  this  is  a  matter  into,  which  I  do  not  wish  to 
enter.  What  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Duke  is,  how  he 
built  the  fifty  homesteads  and  reclaimed  the  thousands  of 
acres?  Not  with  his  own  hands,  of  course;  but  with  his 
money.  Where,  then,  did  he  get  that  money?  Was  it 
not  taken  as  rent  from  the  cultivators  of  the  soil?  And 
might  not  they,  had  it  been  left  to  them,  have  devoted  it 
to  the  building  of  homesteads  and  the  improvement  of  the 
soil  as  well  as  he?  Suppose  the  Duke  spends  on  such 
improvements  all  he  draws  in  rent,  minus  what  it  costs 
him  to  live,  is  not  the  cost  of  his  living  so  much  waste  so 
far  as  the  improvement  of  the  land  is  concerned  ?  Would 


66 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


there  not  be  a  considerably  greater  fund  to  devote  to  this 
purpose  if  the  Duke  got  no  rent,  and  had  to  work  for  a 
living  ? 

But  all  Scottish  landholders  are  not  even  such  improvers 
as  the  Duke.  There  are  landlords  who  spend  their  incomes 
in  racing,  in  profligacy,  in  doing  things  which  when  not 
injurious  are  quite  as  useless  to  man  or  beast  as  the 
works  of  that  English  Duke,  recently  dead,  who  spent 
millions  in  burrowing  underground  like  a  mole.  What 
the  Scottish  landlords  call  their  “  improvements  ”  have, 
for  the  most  part,  consisted  in  building  castles,  laying  out 
pleasure-grounds,  raising  rents,  and  evicting  their  kins¬ 
men.  But  the  encouragement  given  to  agriculture,  by 
even  such  improving  owners  as  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  is  very 
much  like  the  encouragement  given  to  traffic  by  the  Duke 
of  Bedford,  who  keeps  two  or  three  old  men  and  women 
to  open  and  shut  gates  he  has  erected  across  the  streets 
of  London.  That  much  the  greater  part  of  the  incomes 
drawn  by  landlords  is  as  completely  lost  for  all  productive 
purposes  as  though  it  were  thrown  into  the  sea,  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  But  that  even  the  small  part  which  is 
devoted  to  reproductive  improvement  is  largely  wasted, 
the  Duke  of  Argyll  himself  clearly  shows  in  stating,  what 
I  have  learned  from  other  sources,  that  the  large  outlays 
of  the  great  landholders  yield  little  interest,  and  in  many 
cases  no  interest  at  all.  Clearly,  the  stock  of  wealth  would 
have  been  much  greater  had  this  capital  been  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  cultivators,  who,  in  most  cases,  suffer  from 
lack  of  capital,  and  in  many  cases  have  to  pay  the  most 
usurious  interest. 

In  fact,  the  plea  of  the  landlords  that  they,  as  landlords, 
assist  in  production,  is  very  much  like  the  plea  of  the 
slaveholders  that  they  gave  a  living  to  the  slaves.  And 
I  am  convinced  that  if  the  Duke  of  Argyll  will  consider 
the  matter  as  a  philosopher  rather  than  as  a  landlord,  he 


THE  “  REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


67 


will  see  the  gross  inconsistency  between  the  views  he 
expresses  as  to  negro  slavery  and  the  position  he  assumes 
as  to  property  in  land. 

In  principle  the  two  systems  of  appropriating  the  labor 
of  other  men  are  essentially  the  same.  Since  it  is  from 
land  and  on  land  that  man  mnst  live,  if  he  is  to  live  at 
all,  a  human  being  is  as  completely  enslaved  when  the 
land  on  which  he  must  live  is  made  the  property  of  another 
as  when  his  own  flesh  and  blood  are  made  the  property 
of  that  other.  And  at  least,  after  a  certain  point  in  social 
development  is  reached,  the  slavery  that  results  from 
depriving  men  of  all  legal  right  to  land  is,  for  the  very 
reason  that  the  relation  between  master  and  slave  is  not 
so  direct  and  obvious,  more  cruel  and  more  demoralizing 
than  that  which  makes  property  of  their  bodies. 

And  turning  to  facts,  the  Duke  must  see,  if  he  will  look, 
that  the  effects  of  the  two  systems  are  substantially  the 
same.  He  is,  for  instance,  an  hereditary  legislator,  with 
power  in  making  laws  which  other  Scotsmen,  who  have 
little  or  no  voice  in  making  laws,  must  obey  under  penalty 
of  being  fined,  imprisoned,  or  hanged.  He  has  this  power, 
which  is  essentially  that  of  the  master  to  compel  the 
slave,  not  because  any  one  thinks  that  Nature  gives  wisdom 
and  patriotism  to  eldest  sons  more  than  to  younger  sons, 
or  to  some  families  more  than  to  other  families,  but 
because  as  the  legal  owner  of  a  considerable  part  of  Scot¬ 
land,  he  is  deemed  to  have  greater  rights  in  making  laws 
than  other  Scotsmen,  who  can  live  in  their  native  land 
only  by  paying  some  of  the  legal  owners  of  Scotland  for 
the  privilege. 

That  power  over  men  arises  from  ownership  of  land  as 
well  as  from  ownership  of  their  bodies  the  Duke  may  see 
in  varied  manifestations  if  he  will  look.  The  power  of 
the  Scottish  landlords  over  even  the  large  farmers,  and,  in 
the  smaller  towns,  over  even  the  well-to-do  shopkeepers 


68 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


and  professional  men,  is  enormous.  Even  where  it  is  the 
custom  to  let  on  lease,  and  large  capital  is  required,  com¬ 
petition,  aided  in  many  cases  by  the  law  of  hypothec, 
enables  the  landlord  to  exert  a  direct  power  over  even  the 
large  farmer.  That  many  substantial  farmers  have  been 
driven  from  their  homes  and  ruined  because  they  voted 
or  were  supposed  to  have  voted  against  the  wishes  of  their 
landlords  is  well  known.  A  man  whose  reputation  was 
that  of  the  best  farmer  in  Scotland  #  was  driven  from  his 
home  in  this  way  a  few  years  since  for  having  politically 
offended  his  landlord.  In  Leeds  (England)  I  was  told  of 
a  Scottish  physician  who  died  there  lately.  He  had  been 
in  comfortable  practice  in  a  village  on  the  estate  of  a 
Scottish  duke.  Because  he  voted  for  a  Liberal  candidate, 
word  was  given  by  the  landlord’s  agent  that  he  was  no 
longer  to  be  employed,  and  as  the  people  feared  to  disobey 
the  hint,  he  was  obliged  to  leave.  He  came  to  Leeds,  and 
not  succeeding  in  establishing  himself,  pined  away,  and 
would  have  died  in  utter  destitution  but  that  some  friends 
he  had  made  in  Leeds  wrote  to  the  candidate  for  support¬ 
ing  whom  he  had  been  boycotted,  who  came  to  Leeds, 
provided  for  his  few  days  of  life,  and  assumed  the  care  of 
his  children.  I  mention  to  his  honor  the  name  of  that 
gentleman  as  it  was  given  to  me.  It  was  Sir  Sydney 
Waterlow. 

During  a  recent  visit  to  the  Highlands  I  was  over  and 
over  again  told  by  well-to-do  men  that  they  did  not  dare 
to  let  their  opinions  be  known  or  to  take  any  action  the 
landlords  or  their  agents  might  dislike.  In  one  townf 
such  men  came  to  me  by  night  and  asked  me  to  speak, 
but  telling  me  frankly  that  they  did  not  dare  to  apply  for 
a  hall,  requested  me  to  do  that  for  myself,  as  I  was  beyond 


*  John  Hope  of  Fenton  Barns, 
t  Portree,  Isle  of  Skye. 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


69 


the  tyranny  they  feared.  If  this  be  the  condition  of  the 
well-to-do,  the  condition  of  the  crofters  can  be  imagined. 
One  of  them  said  to  me,  “We  have  feared  the  landlord 
more  than  we  have  feared  God  Almighty  j  we  have  feared 
the  factor  more  than  the  landlord,  and  the  ground  officer 
more  than  the  factor.”  But  there  is  a  class  lower  still 
even  than  the  crofters— the  cotters— who,  on  forty-eight 
hours’  notice,  can  be  turned  out  of  what  by  courtesy  are 
called  their  homes,  and  who  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  large 
farmers  or  tacksmen,  who  in  turn  fear  the  landlord  or 
agent.  Take  this  class,  or  the  class  of  farm-servants  who 
are  kept  in  bothies.  Can  the  Duke  tell  me  of  any  Ameri¬ 
can  slaves  who  were  lodged  and  fed  as  these  white  slaves 
are  lodged  and  fed,  or  who  had  less  of  all  the  comforts 
and  enjoyments  of  life? 

The  slaveholders  of  the  South  never,  in  any  case  that  I 
have  heard  of,  interfered  with  the  religion  of  the  slaves, 
and  the  Duke  of  Argyll  will  doubtless  admit  that  this  is 
a  power  which  one  man  ought  not  to  have  over  another. 
Yet  he  must  know  that  at  the  disruption  of  the  Scottish 
Church,  some  forty  years  ago,  Scottish  proprietors  not 
merely  evicted  tenants  who  joined  the  Free  Church  (and 
in  many  cases  eviction  meant  ruin  and  death),  but  abso¬ 
lutely  refused  sites  for  churches  and  even  permission  for 
the  people  to  stand  upon  the  land  and  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  conscience.  Hugh  Miller 
has  told,  in  “  The  Cruise  of  the  Betsy,”  how  one  minister, 
denied  permission  to  live  on  the  land,  had  to  make  his 
home  on  the  sea  in  a  small  boat.  Large  congregations 
had  to  worship  on  mountain  roadsides  without  shelter 
from  storm  and  sleet,  and  even  on  the  sea-shore,  where 
the  tide  flowed  around  their  knees  as  they  took  the  com¬ 
munion.  But  perhaps  the  slavishness  which  has  been 
engendered  in  Scotland  by  land  monopoly  is  not  better 
illustrated  than  in  the  case  where,  after  keeping  them  off 


70 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


his  land  for  more  than  six  years,  a  Scottish  duke  allowed 
a  congregation  the  use  of  a  gravel-pit  for  purposes  of 
worship,  whereupon  they  sent  him  a  resolution  of  thanks  ! 

In  the  large  cities  tyranny  of  this  kind  cannot,  of  course, 
be  exercised,  but  it  is  in  the  large  cities  that  the  slavery 
resulting  from  the  reduction  of  land  to  private  ownership 
assumes  the  darkest  shades.  Negro  slavery  had  its  hor¬ 
rors,  but  they  were  not  so  many  or  so  black  as  those 
constantly  occurring  in  such  cities.  Their  own  selfish 
interests,  if  not  their  human  sympathies  or  the  restraint 
of  public  opinion,  would  have  prevented  the  owners  of 
negro  slaves  from  lodging  and  feeding  and  working  them 
as  many  of  the  so-called  free  people  in  the  centers  of 
civilization  are  lodged  and  fed  and  worked. 

With  all  allowance  for  the  prepossessions  of  a  great 
landlord,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  can  regard  as  an  animating  scene  the  history  of 
agricultural  improvement  in  Scotland  since  1745.  From 
the  date  mentioned,  and  the  fact  that  he  is  a  Highlander, 
I  presume  that  he  refers  mainly  to  the  Highlands.  But 
as  a  parallel  to  calling  this  history  “animating,”  I  can 
think  of  nothing  so  close  as  the  observation  of  an  econo¬ 
mist  of  the  Duke’s  school,  who,  in  an  account  of  a  visit  to 
Scotland,  a  generation  or  so  ago,  spoke  of  the  pleasure 
with  which,  in  a  workhouse,  he  had  seen  “  both  sexes  and 
all  ages,  even  to  infants  of  two  and  three  years,  earning 
their  living  by  picking  oakum,”  or  as  the  expression  of 
pride  with  which  a  Polish  noble,  in  the  last  century, 
pointed  out  to  an  English  visitor  some  miserable-looking 
creatures  who,  he  said,  were  samples  of  the  serfs,  any  one 
of  whom  he  could  kick  as  he  pleased ! 

“Thousands  and  thousands  of  acres,”  says  the  Duke, 
“have  been  reclaimed  from  barren  wastes;  ignorance  has 
given  place  to  science,  and  barbarous  customs  of  imme¬ 
morial  strength  have  been  replaced  by  habits  of  intelli- 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


71 


gence  and  business.”  This  is  one  side  of  the  picture,  but 
unfortunately  there  is  another  side— chieftains  taking 
advantage  of  the  reverential  affection  of  their  clansmen, 
and  their  ignorance  of  a  foreign  language  and  a  foreign 
law,  to  reduce  those  clansmen  to  a  condition  of  virtual 
slavery;  to  rob  them  of  the  land  which  by  immemorial 
custom  they  had  enjoyed;  to  substitute  for  the  mutual 
tie  that  bound  chief  to  vassal  and  vassal  to  chief,  the  cold 
maxims  of  money-making  greed ;  to  drive  them  from  their 
homes  that  sheep  might  have  place,  or  to  hand  them  over 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  great  farmer. 

“  There  has  been  grown,”  says  the  Duke,  u  more  corn, 
more  potatoes,  more  turnips;  there  has  been  produced 
more  milk,  more  butter,  more  cheese,  more  beef,  more 
mutton,  more  pork,  more  fowls  and  eggs.”  But  what 
becomes  of  them?  The  Duke  must  know  that  the  ordi¬ 
nary  food  of  the  common  people  is  meal  and  potatoes; 
that  of  these  many  do  not  get  enough ;  that  many  would 
starve  outright  if  they  were  not  kept  alive  by  charity. 
Even  the  wild  meat  which  their  fathers  took  freely,  the 
common  people  cannot  now  touch.  A  Highland  poor-law 
physician,  whose  district  is  on  the  estate  of  a  prominent 
member  of  the  Liberal  party,  was  telling  me  recently  of 
the  miserable  poverty  of  the  people  among  whom  his 
official  duties  lie,  and  how  insufficient  and  monotonous 
food  was  beginning  to  produce  among  them  diseases  like 
the  pellagra  in  Italy.  When  I  asked  him  if  they  could 
not,  despite  the  gamekeepers,  take  for  themselves  enough 
fish  and  game  to  vary  their  diet,  u  They  never  think  of  it,” 
he  replied  ;  u  they  are  too  cowed.  Why,  the  moment  any 
one  of  them  was  even  suspected  of  cultivating  a  taste  for 
trout  or  grouse,  he  would  be  driven  off  the  estate  like  a 
mad  dog.” 

Besides  the  essays  and  journals  referred  to  by  the  Duke 
of  Argyll,  there  is  another  publication,  which  any  one 


72 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


wishing  to  be  informed  on  the  subject  may  read  with 
advantage,  though  not  with  pleasure.  It  is  entitled 
“  Highland  Clearances,”  and  is  published  in  Inverness  by 
A.  McKenzie.  There  is  nothing  in  savage  life  more  cold¬ 
bloodedly  atrocious  than  the  warfare  here  recorded  as 
carried  on  against  the  clansmen  by  those  who  were  their 
hereditary  protectors.  The  burning  of  houses ;  the  ejec¬ 
tion  of  old  and  young  5  the  tearing  down  of  shelters  put 
up  to  shield  women  with  child  and  tender  infants  from 
the  bitter  night  blast;  the  threats  of  similar  treatment 
against  all  who  should  give  them  hospitality ;  the  forcing 
of  poor  helpless  creatures  into  emigrant  ships  which  car¬ 
ried  them  to  strange  lands  and  among  a  people  of  whose 
tongue  they  were  utterly  ignorant,  to  die  in  many  cases 
like  rotten  sheep  or  to  be  reduced  to  utter  degradation. 
An  animating  scene  truly !  Great  districts  once  peopled 
with  a  race,  rude  it  may  be  and  slavish  to  their  chiefs,  but 
still  a  race  of  manly  virtues,  brave,  kind,  and  hospitable 
—now  tenanted  only  by  sheep  or  cattle,  by  grouse  or  deer ! 
No  one  can  read  of  the  atrocities  perpetrated  upon  the 
Scottish  people,  during  what  is  called  u  the  improvement 
of  the  Highlands,”  without  feeling  something  like  utter 
contempt  for  men  who,  lions  abroad,  were  such  sheep  at 
home  that  they  suffered  these  outrages  without  striking 
a  blow,  even  if  an  ineffectual  one.  But  the  explanation 
of  this  reveals  a  lower  depth  in  the  u  reduction  to  iniquity.” 
The  reason  of  the  tame  submission  of  the  Highland  people 
to  outrages  which  should  have  nerved  the  most  timid  is 
to  be  found  in  the  prostitution  of  their  religion.  The 
Highland  people  are  a  deeply  religious  people,  and  dur¬ 
ing  these  evictions  their  preachers  preached  to  them 
that  their  trials  were  the  visitations  of  the  Almighty 
and  must  be  submitted  to  under  the  penalty  of  eternal 
damnation ! 


THE  “REDUCTION  TO  INIQUITY.” 


73 


I  met  accidentally  in  Scotland,  recently,  a  lady  of  the 
small  landlord  class,  and  the  conversation  turned  upon 
the  poverty  of  the  Highland  people.  “  Yes,  they  are  poor,” 
she  said,  “  but  they  deserve  to  be  poor ;  they  are  so  dirty. 
I  have  no  sympathy  with  women  who  won’t  keep  their 
houses  neat  and  their  children  tidy.” 

I  suggested  that  neatness  could  hardly  be  expected  from 
women  who  every  day  had  to  trudge  for  miles  with  creels 
of  peat  and  seaweed  on  their  backs. 

“  Yes,”  she  said,  “  they  do  have  to  work  hard.  But  that 
is  not  so  sad  as  the  hard  lives  of  the  horses.  Did  you 
ever  think  of  the  horses?  They  have  to  work  all  their 
lives — till  they  can’t  wrork  any  longer.  It  makes  me  sad 
to  think  of  it.  There  ought  to  be  big  farms  where  horses 
should  be  turned  out  after  they  had  worked  some  years, 
so  that  they  might  have  time  to  enjoy  themselves  before 
they  died.” 

“But  the  people?”  I  interposed.  “They,  too,  have  to 
work  till  they  can’t  work  longer.” 

“  Oh,  yes !  ”  she  replied,  “  but  the  people  have  souls,  and 
even  if  they  do  have  a  hard  time  of  it  here,  they  will,  if 
they  are  good,  go  to  heaven  when  they  die,  and  be  happy 
hereafter.  But  the  poor  beasts  have  no  souls,  and  if  they 
don’t  enjoy  themselves  here,  they  have  no  chance  of 
enjoying  themselves  at  all.  It  is  too  bad  !  ” 

The  woman  was  in  sober  earnest.  And  I  question  if 
she  did  not  fairly  represent  much  that  has  been  taught  in 
Scotland  as  Christianity.  But  at  last,  thank  God  !  the  day 
is  breaking,  and  the  blasphemy  that  has  been  preached  as 
religion  will  not  be  heard  much  longer.  The  manifesto 
of  the  Scottish  Land  Restoration  League,  calling  upon  the 
Scottish  people  to  bind  themselves  together  in  solemn 
league  and  covenant  for  the  extirpation  of  the  sin  and 
shame  of  landlordism,  is  a  lark’s  note  in  the  dawn. 


74 


PROPERTY  IN  LAND. 


As  in  Scotland  so  elsewhere.  I  have  spoken  particularly 
of  Scotland  only  because  the  Duke  does  so.  But  every¬ 
where  that  our  civilization  extends  the  same  primary 
injustice  is  bearing  the  same  evil  fruits.  And  everywhere 
the  same  spirit  is  rising,  the  same  truth  is  beginning  to 
force  its  way. 


THE 

CONDITION  OF  LABOR 


AN  OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 
BY  HENRY  GEORGE 


WITH  ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII.  ON 
THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR 


Copyright,  1891,  by 
Henry  George 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 

AN  OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


TO  Pope  Leo  XIII. 

Your  Holiness  :  I  have  read  with  care  your  Encyc¬ 
lical  letter  on  the  condition  of  labor,  addressed,  through 
the  Patriarchs,  Primates,  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of 
your  faith,  to  the  Christian  World. 

Since  its  most  strikingly  pronounced  condemnations 
are  directed  against  a  theory  that  we  who  hold  it  know  to 
be  deserving  of  your  support,  I  ask  permission  to  lay 
before  your  Holiness  the  grounds  of  our  belief,  and  to  set 
forth  some  considerations  that  you  have  unfortunately 
overlooked.  The  momentous  seriousness  of  the  facts  you 
refer  to,  the  poverty,  suffering  and  seething  discontent 
that  pervade  the  Christian  world,  the  danger  that  passion 
may  lead  ignorance  in  a  blind  struggle  against  social  con¬ 
ditions  rapidly  becoming  intolerable,  are  my  justification. 

I. 

Our  postulates  are  all  stated  or  implied  in  your  Encyc¬ 
lical.  They  are  the  primary  perceptions  of  human  reason, 
the  fundamental  teachings  of  the  Christian  faith : 

We  hold:  That — 

This  world  is  the  creation  of  God. 


4 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


The  men  brought  into  it  for  the  brief  period  of  their 
earthly  lives  are  the  equal  creatures  of  his  bounty,  the 
equal  subjects  of  his  provident  care. 

By  his  constitution  man  is  beset  by  physical  wants,  on 
the  satisfaction  of  which  depend  not  only  the  maintenance 
of  his  physical  life  but  also  the  development  of  his  intel¬ 
lectual  and  spiritual  life. 

God  has  made  the  satisfaction  of  these  wants  dependent 
on  man’s  own  exertions,  giving  him  the  power  and  laying 
on  him  the  injunction  to  labor— a  power  that  of  itself 
raises  him  far  above  the  brute,  since  we  may  reverently 
say  that  it  enables  him  to  become  as  it  were  a  helper  in 
the  creative  work. 

God  has  not  put  on  man  the  task  of  making  bricks 
without  straw.  With  the  need  for  labor  and  the  power 
to  labor  he  has  also  given  to  man  the  material  for  labor. 
This  material  is  land— man  physically  being  a  land  animal, 
who  can  live  only  on  and  from  land,  and  can  use  other 
elements,  such  as  air,  sunshine  and  water,  only  by  the  use 
of  land. 

Being  the  equal  creatures  of  the  Creator,  equally  entitled 
under  his  providence  to  live  their  lives  and  satisfy  their 
needs,  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  use  of  land,  and 
any  adjustment  that  denies  this  equal  use  of  land  is 
morally  wrong. 

As  to  the  right  of  ownership,  we  hold :  That- 

Being  created  individuals,  with  individual  wants  and 
powers,  men  are  individually  entitled  (subject  of  course 
to  the  moral  obligations  that  arise  from  such  relations  as 
that  of  the  family)  to  the  use  of  their  own  powers  and 
the  enjoyment  of  the  results. 

There  thus  arises,  anterior  to  human  law,  and  deriving 
its  validity  from  the  law  of  God,  a  right  of  private  owner¬ 
ship  in  things  produced  by  labor— a  right  that  the  pos- 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


5 


sessor  may  transfer,  but  of  which  to  deprive  him  without 
his  will  is  theft. 

This  right  of  property,  originating  in  the  right  of  the 
individual  to  himself,  is  the  only  full  and  complete  right 
of  property.  It  attaches  to  things  produced  by  labor,  but 
cannot  attach  to  things  created  by  God. 

Thus,  if  a  man  take  a  fish  from  the  ocean  he  acquires  a 
right  of  property  in  that  fish,  which  exclusive  right  he 
may  transfer  by  sale  or  gift.  But  he  cannot  obtain  a 
similar  right  of  property  in  the  ocean,  so  that  he  may  sell 
it  or  give  it  or  forbid  others  to  use  it. 

Or,  if  he  set  up  a  windmill  he  acquires  a  right  of  prop- 
ertjr  in  the  things  such  use  of  wind  enables  him  to  produce. 
But  he  cannot  claim  a  right  of  property  in  the  wind  itself, 
so  that  he  may  sell  it  or  forbid  others  to  use  it. 

Or,  if  he  cultivate  grain  he  acquires  a  right  of  property 
in  the  grain  his  labor  brings  forth.  But  he  cannot  obtain 
a  similar  right  of  property  in  the  sun  which  ripened  it  or 
the  soil  on  which  it  grew.  For  these  things  are  of  the 
continuing  gifts  of  God  to  all  generations  of  men,  which 
all  may  use,  but  none  may  claim  as  his  alone. 

To  attach  to  things  created  by  God  the  same  right  of 
private  ownership  that  justly  attaches  to  things  produced 
by  labor  is  to  impair  and  deny  the  true  rights  of  property. 
For  a  man  who  out  of  the  proceeds  of  his  labor  is  obliged 
to  pay  another  man  for  the  use  of  ocean  or  air  or  sunshine 
or  soil,  all  of  which  are  to  men  involved  in  the  single  term 
land,  is  in  this  deprived  of  his  rightful  property  and  thus 
robbed. 

As  to  the  use  of  land,  we  hold :  That— 

While  the  right  of  ownership  that  justly  attaches  to 
things  produced  by  labor  cannot  attach  to  land,  there 
may  attach  to  land  a  right  of  possession.  As  your  Holi¬ 
ness  says,  u  God  has  not  granted  the  earth  to  mankind  in 


6 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


general  in  the  sense  that  all  without  distinction  can  deal 
with  it  as  they  please/’  and  regulations  necessary  for  its 
best  use  may  be  fixed  by  human  laws.  But  such  regula¬ 
tions  must  conform  to  the  moral  law— must  secure  to  all 
equal  participation  in  the  advantages  of  God’s  general 
bounty.  The  principle  is  the  same  as  where  a  human 
father  leaves  property  equally  to  a  number  of  children. 
Some  of  the  things  thus  left  may  be  incapable  of  common 
use  or  of  specific  division.  Such  things  may  properly  be 
assigned  to  some  of  the  children,  but  only  under  con¬ 
dition  that  the  equality  of  benefit  among  them  all  be 
preserved. 

In  the  rudest  social  state,  while  industry  consists  in 
hunting,  fishing,  and  gathering  the  spontaneous  fruits  of 
the  earth,  private  possession  of  land  is  not  necessary. 
But  as  men  begin  to  cultivate  the  ground  and  expend 
their  labor  in  permanent  works,  private  possession  of  the 
land  on  which  labor  is  thus  expended  is  needed  to  secure 
the  right  of  property  in  the  products  of  labor.  For  who 
would  sow  if  not  assured  of  the  exclusive  possession 
needed  to  enable  him  to  reap?  who  would  attach  costly 
works  to  the  soil  without  such  exclusive  possession  of  the 
soil  as  would  enable  him  to  secure  the  benefit  ? 

This  right  of  private  possession  in  things  created  by 
God  is  however  very  different  from  the  right  of  private 
ownership  in  things  produced  by  labor.  The  one  is 
limited,  the  other  unlimited,  save  in  cases  when  the 
dictate  of  self-preservation  terminates  all  other  rights. 
The  purpose  of  the  one,  the  exclusive  possession  of  land, 
is  merely  to  secure  the  other,  the  exclusive  ownership  of 
the  products  of  labor;  and  it  can  never  rightfully  be 
carried  so  far  as  to  impair  or  deny  this.  While  any  one 
may  hold  exclusive  possession  of  land  so  far  as  it  does 
not  interfere  with  the  equal  rights  of  others,  he  can 
rightfully  hold  it  no  further. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


7 


Thus  Cain  and  Abel,  were  there  only  two  men  on 
earth,  might  by  agreement  divide  the  earth  between 
them.  Under  this  compact  each  might  claim  exclusive 
right  to  his"  share  as  against  the  other.  But  neither 
could  rightfully  continue  such  claim  against  the  next 
man  born.  For  since  no  one  comes  into  the  world  with¬ 
out  God’s  permission,  his  presence  attests  his  equal  right 
to  the  use  of  God’s  bounty.  For  them  to  refuse  him  any 
use  of  the  earth  which  they  had  divided  between  them 
would  therefore  be  for  them  to  commit  murder.  And 
for  them  to  refuse  him  any  use  of  the  earth,  unless  by 
laboring  for  them  or  by  giving  them  part  of  the  products 
of  his  labor  he  bought  it  of  them,  would  be  for  them  to 
commit  theft. 

God’s  laws  do  not  change.  Though  their  applications 
may  alter  with  altering  conditions,  the  same  principles 
of  right  and  wrong  that  hold  when  men  are  few  and 
industry  is  rude  also  hold  amid  teeming  populations  and 
complex  industries.  In  our  cities  of  millions  and  our 
states  of  scores  of  millions,  in  a  civilization  where  the 
division  of  labor  has  gone  so  far  that  large  numbers  are 
hardly  conscious  that  they  are  land-users,  it  still  remains 
true  that  we  are  all  land  animals  and  can  live  only  on 
land,  and  that  land  is  God’s  bounty  to  all,  of  which  no 
one  can  be  deprived  without  being  murdered,  and  for 
which  no  one  can  be  compelled  to  pay  another  without 
being  robbed.  But  even  in  a  state  of  society  where  the 
elaboration  of  industry  and  the  increase  of  permanent 
improvements  have  made  the  need  for  private  possession 
of  land  wide-spread,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  conforming 
individual  possession  with  the  equal  right  to  land.  For 
as  soon  as  any  piece  of  land  will  yield  to  the  possessor  a 
larger  return  than  is  had  by  similar  labor  on  other  land 
a  value  attaches  to  it  which  is  shown  when  it  is  sold  or 


8 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


rented.  Thus,  the  value  of  the  land  itself,  irrespective 
of  the  value  of  any  improvements  in  or  on  it,  always 
indicates  the  precise  value  of  the  benefit  to  which  all  are 
entitled  in  its  use,  as  distinguished  from  the  value  which, 
as  producer  or  successor  of  a  producer,  belongs  to  the 
possessor  in  individual  right. 

To  combine  the  advantages  of  private  possession  with 
the  justice  of  common  ownership  it  is  only  necessary 
therefore  to  take  for  common  uses  what  value  attaches 
to  land  irrespective  of  any  exertion  of  labor  on  it.  The 
principle  is  the  same  as  in  the  case  referred  to,  where  a 
human  father  leaves  equally  to  his  children  things  not 
susceptible  of  specific  division  or  common  use.  In  that 
case  such  things  would  be  sold  or  rented  and  the  value 
equally  applied. 

It  is  on  this  common-sense  principle  that  we,  who 
term  ourselves  single-tax  men,  would  have  the  commu¬ 
nity  act. 

We  do  not  propose  to  assert  equal  rights  to  land  by 
keeping  land  common,  letting  any  one  use  any  part  of  it 
at  any  time.  We  do  not  propose  the  task,  impossible  in 
the  present  state  of  society,  of  dividing  land  in  equal 
shares ;  still  less  the  yet  more  impossible  task  of  keeping 
it  so  divided. 

We  propose— leaving  land  in  the  private  possession  of 
individuals,  with  full  liberty  on  their  part  to  give,  sell 
or  bequeath  it — simply  to  levy  on  it  for  public  uses  a 
tax  that  shall  equal  the  annual  value  of  the  land  itself, 
irrespective  of  the  use  made  of  it  or  the  improvements 
on  it.  And  since  this  would  provide  amply  for  the  need 
of  public  revenues,  we  would  accompany  this  tax  on  land 
values  with  the  repeal  of  all  taxes  now  levied  on  the 
products  and  processes  of  industry— which  taxes,  since 
they  take  from  the  earnings  of  labor,  we  hold  to  be 
infringements  of  the  right  of  property. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


9 


This  we  propose,  not  as  a  cunning  device  of  human 
ingenuity,  but  as  a  conforming  of  human  regulations  to 
the  will  of  God. 

God  cannot  contradict  himself  nor  impose  on  his  crea¬ 
tures  laws  that  clash. 

If  it  be  God’s  command  to  men  that  they  should  not 
steal—  that  is  to  say,  that  they  should  respect  the  right 
of  property  which  each  one  has  in  the  fruits  of  his  labor ; 

And  if  he  be  also  the  Father  of  all  men,  who  in  his 
common  bounty  has  intended  all  to  have  equal  opportu¬ 
nities  for  sharing ; 

Then,  in  any  possible  stage  of  civilization,  however 
elaborate,  there  must  be  some  way  in  which  the  exclusive 
right  to  the  products  of  industry  may  be  reconciled  with 
the  equal  right  to  land. 

If  the  Almighty  be  consistent  with  himself,  it  cannot 
be,  as  say  those  socialists  referred  to  by  you,  that  in 
order  to  secure  the  equal  participation  of  men  in  the 
opportunities  of  life  and  labor  we  must  ignore  the  right 
of  private  property.  Nor  yet  can  it  be,  as  you  yourself 
in  the  Encyclical  seem  to  argue,  that  to  secure  the  right 
of  private  property  we  must  ignore  the  equality  of  right 
in  the  opportunities  of  life  and  labor.  To  say  the  one 
thing  or  the  other  is  equally  to  deny  the  harmony  of 
God’s  laws. 

But,  the  private  possession  of  land,  subject  to  the 
payment  to  the  community  of  the  value  of  any  special 
advantage  thus  given  to  the  individual,  satisfies  both 
laws,  securing  to  all  equal  participation  in  the  bounty  of 
the  Creator  and  to  each  the  full  ownership  of  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  his  labor. 

Nor  do  we  hesitate  to  say  that  this  way  of  securing 
the  equal  right  to  the  bounty  of  the  Creator  and  the 
exclusive  right  to  the  products  of  labor  is  the  way 


10 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


intended  by  God  for  raising  public  revenues.  For  we 
are  not  atheists,  who  deny  God;  nor  semi-atheists,  who 
deny  that  he  has  any  concern  in  politics  and  legislation. 

It  is  true  as  you  say— a  salutary  truth  too  often  for¬ 
gotten— that  “man  is  older  than  the  state,  and  he  holds 
the  right  of  providing  for  the  life  of  his  body  prior  to 
the  formation  of  any  state.”  Yet,  as  yon  too  perceive,  it 
is  also  true  that  the  state  is  in  the  divinely  appointed 
order.  For  He  who  foresaw  all  things  and  provided  for 
all  things,  foresaw  and  provided  that  with  the  increase 
of  population  and  the  development  of  industry  the 
organization  of  human  society  into  states  or  govern¬ 
ments  would  become  both  expedient  and  necessary. 

No  sooner  does  the  state  arise  than,  as  we  all  know,  it 
needs  revenues.  This  need  for  revenues  is  small  at  first, 
while  population  is  sparse,  industry  rude  and  the  func¬ 
tions  of  the  state  few  and  simple.  But  wdth  growth  of 
population  and  advance  of  civilization  the  functions  of  the 
state  increase  and  larger  and  larger  revenues  are  needed. 

Now,  He  that  made  the  world  and  placed  man  in  it, 
He  that  pre-ordained  civilization  as  the  means  whereby 
man  might  rise  to  higher  powers  and  become  more  and 
more  conscious  of  the  works  of  his  Creator,  must  have 
foreseen  this  increasing  need  for  state  revenues  and  have 
made  provision  for  it.  That  is  to  say :  The  increasing 
need  for  public  revenues  with  social  advance,  being  a 
natural,  God-ordained  need,  there  must  be  a  right  way 
of  raising  them— some  way  that  we  can  truly  say  is  the 
way  intended  by  God.  It  is  clear  that  this  right  way  of 
raising  public  revenues  must  accord  with  the  moral  law. 

Hence  : 

It  must  not  take  from  individuals  what  rightfully 
belongs  to  individuals. 

It  must  not  give  some  an  advantage  over  others,  as  by 
increasing  the  prices  of  what  some  have  to  sell  and 
others  must  buy. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


11 


It  must  not  lead  men  into  temptation,  by  requiring 
trivial  oaths,  by  making  it  profitable  to  lie,  to  swear 
falsely,  to  bribe  or  to  take  bribes. 

It  must  not  confuse  the  distinctions  of  right  and 
wrong,  and  weaken  the  sanctions  of  religion  and  the 
state  by  creating  crimes  that  are  not  sins,  and  punishing 
men  for  doing  what  in  itself  they  have  an  undoubted 
right  to  do. 

It  must  not  repress  industry.  It  must  not  check  com¬ 
merce.  It  must  not  punish  thrift.  It  must  offer  no 
impediment  to  the  largest  production  and  the  fairest 
division  of  wealth. 

Let  me  ask  your  Holiness  to  consider  the  taxes  on  the 
processes  and  products  of  industry  by  which  through  the 
civilized  world  public  revenues  are  collected— the  octroi 
duties  that  surround  Italian  cities  with  barriers;  the 
monstrous  customs  duties  that  hamper  intercourse 
between  so-called  Christian  states;  the  taxes  on  occupa¬ 
tions,  on  earnings,  on  investments,  on  the  building  of 
houses,  on  the  cultivation  of  fields,  on  industry  and  thrift 
in  all  forms.  Can  these  be  the  ways  God  has  intended 
that  governments  should  raise  the  means  they  need? 
Have  any  of  them  the  characteristics  indispensable  in 
any  plan  we  can  deem  a  right  one  ? 

All  these  taxes  violate  the  moral  law.  They  take  by 
force  what  belongs  to  the  individual  alone ;  they  give  to 
the  unscrupulous  an  advantage  over  the  scrupulous ; 
they  have  the  effect,  nay  are  largely  intended,  to  increase 
the  price  of  what  some  have  to  sell  and  others  must  buy ; 
they  corrupt  government;  they  make  oaths  a  mockery; 
they  shackle  commerce ;  they  fine  industry  and  thrift ; 
they  lessen  the  wealth  that  men  might  enjoy,  and  enrich 
some  by  impoverishing  others. 

Yet  what  most  strikingly  shows  how  opposed  to  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  this  system  of  raising  public  revenues  is  its 
influence  on  thought. 


12 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


Christianity  teaches  ns  that  all  men  are  brethren  ;  that 
their  true  interests  are  harmonious,  not  antagonistic.  It 
gives  us,  as  the  golden  rule  of  life,  that  we  should  do  to 
others  as  we  would  have  others  do  to  us.  But  out  of  the 
system  of  taxing  the  products  and  processes  of  labor, 
and  out  of  its  effects  in  increasing  the  price  of  what 
some  have  to  sell  and  others  must  buy,  has  grown  the 
theory  of  “protection/’  which  denies  this  gospel,  which 
holds  Christ  ignorant  of  political  economy  and  proclaims 
laws  of  national  well-being  utterly  at  variance  with  his 
teaching.  This  theory  sanctities  national  hatreds;  it 
inculcates  a  universal  war  of  hostile  tariffs;  it  teaches 
peoples  that  their  prosperity  lies  in  imposing  on  the 
productions  of  other  peoples  restrictions  they  do  not 
wish  imposed  on  their  own ;  and  instead  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  man’s  brotherhood  it  makes  injury  of  for¬ 
eigners  a  civic  virtue. 

“  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  Can  anything 
more  clearly  show  that  to  tax  the  products  and  processes 
of  industry  is  not  the  way  God  intended  public  revenues 
to  be  raised  ? 

But  to  consider  what  we  propose— the  raising  of  public 
revenues  by  a  single  tax  on  the  value  of  land  irrespective 
of  improvements— is  to  see  that  in  all  respects  this  does 
conform  to  the  moral  law. 

Let  me  ask  your  Holiness  to  keep  in  mind  that  the 
value  we  propose  to  tax,  the  value  of  land  irrespective  of 
improvements,  does  not  come  from  any  exertion  of  labor 
or  investment  of  capital  on  or  in  it — the  values  produced 
in  this  way  being  values  of  improvement  which  we 
would  exempt.  The  value  of  land  irrespective  of 
improvement  is  the  value  that  attaches  to  land  by  reason 
of  increasing  population  and  social  progress.  This  is  a 
value  that  always  goes  to  the  owner  as  owner,  and  never 
does  and  never  can  go  to  the  user ;  for  if  the  user  be  a 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


13 


different  person  from  the  owner  he  must  always  pay  the 
owner  for  it  in  rent  or  in  purchase-money ;  while  if  the 
user  he  also  the  owner,  it  is  as  owner,  not  as  user,  that 
he  receives  it,  and  by  selling-  or  renting  the  land  he  can, 
as  owner,  continue  to  receive  it  after  he  ceases  to  be  a 
user. 

Thus,  taxes  on  land  irrespective  of  improvement  can¬ 
not  lessen  the  rewards  of  industry,  nor  add  to  prices,*  nor 
in  any  way  take  from  the  individual  what  belongs  to  the 
individual.  They  can  take  only  the  value  that  attaches 
to  land  by  the  growth  of  the  community,  and  which 
therefore  belongs  to  the  community  as  a  whole. 

To  take  land  values  for  the  state,  abolishing  all  taxes 
on  the  products  of  labor,  would  therefore  leave  to  the 


*  As  to  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  add  that  all  economists  are 
agreed  that  taxes  on  land  values  irrespective  of  improvement  or  use 
—or  what  in  the  terminology  of  political  economy  is  styled  rent,  a 
term  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  use  of  the  word  rent  by  being 
applied  solely  to  payments  for  the  use  of  land  itself— must  be  paid 
by  the  owner  and  cannot  be  shifted  by  him  on  the  user.  To  explain 
in  another  way  the  reason  given  in  the  text :  Price  is  not  determined 
by  the  will  of  the  seller  or  the  will  of  the  buyer,  but  by  the  equation 
of  demand  and  supply,  and  therefore  as  to  things  constantly  demanded 
and  constantly  produced  rests  at  a  point  determined  by  the  cost  of 
production— whatever  tends  to  increase  the  cost  of  bringing  fresh 
quantities  of  such  articles  to  the  consumer  increasing  price  by  check¬ 
ing  supply,  and  whatever  tends  to  reduce  such  cost  decreasing  price 
by  increasing  supply.  Thus  taxes  .on  wheat  or  tobacco  or  cloth  add 
to  the  price  that  the  consumer  must  pay,  and  thus  the  cheapening 
in  the  cost  of  producing  steel  which  improved  processes  have  made 
in  recent  years  has  greatly  reduced  the  price  of  steel.  But  land  has 
no  cost  of  production,  since  it  is  created  by  God,  not  produced  by 
man.  Its  price  therefore  is  fixed — 1  (monopoly  rent),  where  land  is 
held  in  close  monopoly,  by  what  the  owners  can  extract  from  the 
users  under  penalty  of  deprivation  and  consequently  of  starvation, 
and  amounts  to  all  that  common  labor  can  earn  on  it  beyond  what  is 
necessary  to  life  ;  2  (economic  rent  proper),  where  there  is  no  special 
monopoly,  by  what  the  particular  laud  will  yield  to  common  labor 


14 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


laborer  the  full  produce  of  labor;  to  the  individual  all 
that  rightfully  belongs  to  the  individual.  It  would 
impose  no  burden  on  industry,  no  check  on  commerce, 
no  punishment  on  thrift;  it  would  secure  the  largest 
production  and  the  fairest  distribution  of  wealth,  by 
leaving  men  free  to  produce  and  to  exchange  as  they 
please,  without  any  artificial  enhancement  of  prices ;  and 
by  taking  for  public  purposes  a  value  that  cannot  be 
carried  off,  that  caunot  be  hidden,  that  of  all  values  is 
most  easily  ascertained  and  most  certainly  and  cheaply 
collected,  it  would  enormously  lessen  the  number  of 
officials,  dispense  with  oaths,  do  away  with  temptations 
to  bribery  and  evasion,  and  abolish  man-made  crimes  in 
themselves  innocent. 


over  and  above  what  may  be  had  by  like  expenditure  and  exertion 
on  land  having  no  special  advantage  and  for  which  no  rent  is  paid ; 
and,  3  (speculative  rent,  which  is  a  species  of  monopoly  rent,  telling 
particularly  in  selling  price),  by  the  expectation  of  future  increase 
of  value  from  social  growth  and  improvement,  which  expectation 
causing  landowners  to  withhold  land  at  present  prices  has  the  same 
effect  as  combination. 

Taxes  on  land  values  or  economic  rent  can  therefore  never  be 
shifted  by  the  landowner  to  the  land-user,  since  they  in  no  wise 
increase  the  demand  for  land  or  enable  landowners  to  check  supply 
by  withholding  land  from  use.  Where  rent  depends  on  mere  monopo¬ 
lization,  a  case  I  mention  because  rent  may  in  this  way  be  demanded 
for  the  use  of  land  even  before  economic  or  natural  rent  arises,  the 
taking  by  taxation  of  what  the  landowners  were  able  to  extort  from 
labor  could  not  enable  them  to  extort  any  more,  since  laborers,  if 
not  left  enough  to  live  on,  will  die.  So,  in  the  case  of  economic  rent 
proper,  to  take  from  the  landowners  the  premiums  they  receive, 
would  in  no  way  increase  the  superiority  of  their  land  and  the  demand 
for  it.  While,  so  far  as  price  is  affected  by  speculative  rent,  to  compel 
the  landowners  to  pay  taxes  on  the  value  of  land  whether  they  were 
getting  any  income  from  it  or  not,  would  make  it  more  difficult  for 
them  to  withhold  land  from  use ;  and  to  tax  the  full  value  would  not 
merely  destroy  the  power  but  the  desire  to  do  so. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


15 


But,  further:  That  God  has  intended  the  state  to 
obtain  the  revenues  it  needs  by  the  taxation  of  land 
values  is  shown  by  the  same  order  and  degree  of  evi¬ 
dence  that  shows  that  God  has  intended  the  milk  of  the 
mother  for  the  nourishment  of  the  babe. 

See  how  close  is  the  analogy.  In  that  primitive  condi¬ 
tion  ere  the  need  for  the  state  arises  there  are  no  land 
values.  The  products  of  labor  have  value,  but  in  the 
sparsity  of  population  no  value  as  yet  attaches  to  land 
itself.  But  as  increasing  density  of  population  and 
increasing  elaboration  of  industry  necessitate  the  organi¬ 
zation  of  the  state,  with  its  need  for  revenues,  value 
begins  to  attach  to  land.  As  population  still  increases 
and  industry  growrs  more  elaborate,  so  the  needs  for 
public  revenues  increase.  And  at  the  same  time  and 
from  the  same  causes  land  values  increase.  The  connec¬ 
tion  is  invariable.  The  value  of  things  produced  by 
labor  tends  to  decline  with  social  development,  since  the 
larger  scale  of  production  and  the  improvement  of  pro¬ 
cesses  tend  steadilv  to  reduce  their  cost.  But  the  value 

«/ 

of  land  on  which  population  centers  goes  up  and  up. 
Take  Rome  or  Paris  or  London  or  New  York  or  Mel¬ 
bourne.  Consider  the  enormous  value  of  land  in  such 
cities  as  compared  with  the  value  of  land  in  sparsely 
settled  parts  of  the  same  countries.  To  what  is  this  due  ? 
Is  it  not  due  to  the  density  and  activity  of  the  popula¬ 
tions  of  those  cities— to  the  very  causes  that  require 
great  public  expenditure  for  streets,  drains,  public  build¬ 
ings,  and  all  the  many  things  needed  for  the  health, 
convenience  and  safety  of  such  great  cities?  See  how 
with  the  growth  of  such  cities  the  one  thing  that  steadily 
increases  in  value  is  land ;  how  the  opening  of  roads,  the 
building  of  railways,  the  making  of  any  public  improve¬ 
ment,  adds  to  the  value  of  land.  Is  it  not  clear  that  here 


16 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


is  a  natural  law— that  is  to  say  a  tendency  willed  by  the 
Creator?  Can  it  mean  anything  else  than  that  He  who 
ordained  the  state  with  its  needs  has  in  the  values  which 
attach  to  land  provided  the  means  to  meet  those  needs  ? 

That  it  does  mean  this  and  nothing  else  is  confirmed  if 
we  look  deeper  still,  and  inquire  not  merely  as  to  the 
intent,  but  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  intent.  If  we  do  so 
we  may  see  in  this  natural  law  by  which  land  values 
increase  with  the  growth  of  society  not  only  such  a  per¬ 
fectly  adapted  provision  for  the  needs  of  society  as 
gratifies  our  intellectual  perceptions  by  showing  us  the 
wisdom  of  the  Creator,  but  a  purpose  with  regard  to  the 
individual  that  gratifies  our  moral  perceptions  by  open¬ 
ing  to  us  a  glimpse  of  his  beneficence. 

Consider :  Here  is  a  natural  law  by  which  as  society 
advances  the  one  thing  that  increases  in  value  is  land— a 
natural  law  by  virtue  of  which  all  growth  of  population, 
all  advance  of  the  arts,  all  general  improvements  of 
whatever  kind,  add  to  a  fund  that  both  the  commands  of 
justice  and  the  dictates  of  expediency  prompt  us  to  take 
for  the  common  uses  of  society.  Now,  since  increase  in 
the  fund  available  for  the  common  uses  of  society  is 
increase  in  the  gain  that  goes  equally  to  each  member  of 
society,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  law  by  which  land  values 
increase  with  social  advance  while  the  value  of  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  labor  does  not  increase,  tends  with  the  advance  of 
civilization  to  make  the  share  that  goes  equally  to  each 
member  of  society  more  and  more  important  as  compared 
with  what  goes  to  him  from  his  individual  earnings,  and 
thus  to  make  the  advance  of  civilization  lessen  relatively 
the  differences  that  in  a  ruder  social  state  must  exist 
between  the  strong  and  the  weak,  the  fortunate  and  the 
unfortunate  ?  Does  it  not  show  the  purpose  of  the  Creator 
to  be  that  the  advance  of  man  in  civilization  should  be 


17 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 

\ 

an  advance  not  merely  to  larger  powers  bnt  to  a  greater 
and  greater  equality,  instead  of  what  we,  by  our  ignoring 
of  his  intent,  are  making  it,  an  advance  toward  a ’more 
and  more  monstrous  inequality  ? 

That  the  value  attaching  to  land  with  social  growth  is 
intended  for  social  needs  is  shown  by  the  final  proof. 
God  is  indeed  a  jealous  God  in  the  sense  that  nothing 
but  injury  and  disaster  can  attend  the  effort  of  men  to 
do  things  other  than  in  the  way  he  has  intended ;  in  the 
sense  that  where  the  blessings  he  proffers  to  men  are 
refused  or  misused  they  turn  to  evils  that  scourge  us. 
And  just  as  for  the  mother  to  withhold  the  provision 
that  fills  her  breast  with  the  birth  of  the  child  is  to 
endanger  physical  health,  so  for  society  to  refuse  to  take 
for  social  uses  the  provision  intended  for  them  is  to 
breed  social  disease. 

For  refusal  to  take  for  public  purposes  the  increasing 
values  that  attach  to  land  with  social  growth  is  to  neces¬ 
sitate  the  getting  of  public  revenues  by  taxes  that  lessen 
production,  distort  distribution  and  corrupt  society.  It 
is  to  leave  some  to  take  what  justly  belongs  to  all  5  it  is 
to  forego  the  only  means  by  which  it  is  possible  in  an 
advanced  civilization  to  combine  the  security  of  posses¬ 
sion  thrt  is  necessary  to  improvement  with  the  equality 
of  natural  opportunity  that  is  the  most  important  of  all 
natural  rights.  It  is  thus  at  the  basis  of  all  social  life 
to  set  up  an  unjust  inequality  between  man  and  man, 
compelling  some  to  pay  others  for  the  privilege  of  living, 
for  the  chance  of  working,  for  the  advantages  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  for  the  gifts  of  their  God.  But  it  is  even  more 
than  this.  The  very  robbery  that  the  masses  of  men 
thus  suffer  gives  rise  in  advancing  communities  to  a  new 
robbery.  For  the  value  that  with  the  increase  of  popula¬ 
tion  and  social  advance  attaches  to  land  being  suffered 


18 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


to  go  to  individuals  who  have  secured  ownership  of  the 
landj  it  prompts  to  a  forestalling  of  and  speculation  in 
land  wherever  there  is  any  prospect  of  advancing  popula¬ 
tion  or  of  coming  improvement,  thus  producing  an  arti¬ 
ficial  scarcity  of  the  natural  elements  of  life  and  labor, 
and  a  strangulation  of  production  that  shows  itself  in 
recurring  spasms  of  industrial  depression  as  disastrous 
to  the  world  as  destructive  wars.  It  is  this  that  is 
driving  men  from  the  old  countries  to  the  new  countries, 
only  to  bring  there  the  same  curses.  It  is  this  that 
causes  our  material  advance  not  merely  to  fail  to  improve 
the  condition  of  the  mere  worker,  but  to  make  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  large  classes  positively  worse.  It  is  this  that  in 
our  richest  Christian  countries  is  giving  us  a  large  pop¬ 
ulation  whose  lives  are  harder,  more  hopeless,  more 
degraded  than  those  of  the  veriest  savages.  It  is  this 
that  leads  so  many  men  to  think  that  God  is  a  bungler 
and  is  constantly  bringing  more  people  into  his  world 
than  he  has  made  provision  for;  or  that  there  is  no  God, 
and  that  belief  in  him  is  a  superstition  which  the  facts  of 
life  and  the  advance  of  science  are  dispelling. 

The  darkness  in  light,  the  weakness  in  strength,  the 
poverty  amid  wealth,  the  seething  discontent  foreboding 
civil  strife,  that  characterize  our  civilization  of  to-day, 
are  the  natural,  the  inevitable  results  of  our  rejection  of 
God’s  beneficence,  of  our  ignoring  of  his  intent.  Were 
we  on  the  other  hand  to  follow  his  clear,  simple  rule  of 
right,  leaving  scrupulously  to  the  individual  all  that 
individual  labor  produces,  and  taking  for  the  community 
the  value  that  attaches  to  land  by  the  growth  of  the  com- 
munity  itself,  not  merely  could  evil  modes  of  raising 
public  revenues  be  dispensed  with,  but  all  men  would  be 
placed  on  an  equal  level  of  opportunity  with  regard  to 
the  bounty  of  their  Creator,  on  an  equal  level  of  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  exert  their  labor  and  to  enjoy  its  fruits.  And 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


19 


then,  without  drastic  or  restrictive  measures  the  fore¬ 
stalling  of  laud  would  cease.  For  then  the  possession  of 
land  would  mean  only  security  for  the  permanence  of  its 
use,  and  there  would  be  no  object  for  any  one  to  get  land 
or  to  keep  land  except  for  use ;  nor  would  his  possession 
of  better  land  than  others  had  confer  any  unjust  advan¬ 
tage  on  him,  or  unjust  deprivation  on  them,  since  the 
equivalent  of  the  advantage  would  be  taken  by  the  state 
for  the  benefit  of  all. 

The  Right  Reverend  Dr.  Thomas  Nulty,  Bishop  of 
Meath,  who  sees  all  this  as  clearly  as  we  do,  in  pointing 
out  to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  his  diocese*  the  design  of 
Divine  Providence  that  the  rent  of  land  should  be  taken 
for  the  community,  says : 

I  think,  therefore,  that  I  may  fairly  infer,  on  the  strength  of 
authority  as  well  as  of  reason,  that  the  people  are  and  always  must 
be  the  real  owners  of  the  land  of  their  country.  This  great  social 
fact  appears  to  me  to  be  of  incalculable  importance,  and  it  is  fortu¬ 
nate,  indeed,  that  on  the  strictest  principles  of  justice  it  is  not  clouded 
even  by  a  shadow  of  uncertainty  or  doubt.  There  is,  moreover,  a 
charm  and  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  clearness  with  which  it  reveals 
the  wisdom  and  the  benevolence  of  the  designs  of  Providence  in  the 
admirable  provision  he  has  made  for  the  wants  and  the  necessities 
of  that  state  of  social  existence  of  which  he  is  author,  and  in  which 
the  very  instincts  of  nature  tell  us  we  are  to  spend  our  lives.  A 
vast  public  property,  a  great  national  fund,  has  been  placed  under 
the  dominion  and  at  the  disposal  of  the  nation  to  supply  itself  abun¬ 
dantly  with  resources  necessary  to  liquidate  the  expenses  of  its 
government,  the  administration  of  its  laws  and  the  education  of  its 
youth,  and  to  enable  it  to  provide  for  the  suitable  sustentation  and 
support  of  its  criminal  and  pauper  population.  One  of  the  most 
interesting  peculiarities  of  this  property  is  that  its  value  is  never 
stationary;  it  is  constantly  progressive  and  increasing  in  a  direct 
ratio  to  the  growth  of  the  population,  and  the  very  causes  that 
increase  and  multiply  the  demands  made  on  it  increase  proportion¬ 
ately  its  ability  to  meet  them. 


*  Letter  addressed  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Diocese  of 
Meath,  Ireland,  April  2,  1881. 


20 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


There  is,  indeed,  as  Bishop  Nulty  says,  a  peculiar 
beauty  in  the  clearness  with  which  the  wisdom  and  benev¬ 
olence  of  Providence  are  revealed  in  this  great  social 
fact,  the  provision  made  for  the  common  needs  of  society 
in  what  economists  call  the  law  of  rent.  Of  all  the  evi¬ 
dence  that  natural  religion  gives,  it  is  this  that  most 
clearly  shows  the  existence  of  a  beneficent  God,  and  most 
conclusively  silences  the  doubts  that  in  our  daj^s  lead  so 
many  to  materialism. 

For  in  this  beautiful  provision  made  by  natural  law  for 
the  social  needs  of  civilization  we  see  that  God  has 
intended  civilization ;  that  all  our  discoveries  and  inven¬ 
tions  do  not  and  cannot  outrun  his  forethought,  and  that 
steam,  electricity  and  labor-saving  appliances  only  make 
the  great  moral  laws  clearer  and  more  important.  In 
the  growth  of  this  great  fund,  increasing  with  social 
advance— a  fund  that  accrues  from  the  growth  of  the 
community  and  belongs  therefore  to  the  community — we 
see  not  only  that  there  is  no  need  for  the  taxes  that 
lessen  wealth,  that  engender  corruption,  that  promote 
•inequality  and  teach  men  to  deny  the  gospel;  but  that 
to  take  this  fund  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  evi¬ 
dently  intended  would  in  the  highest  civilization  secure 
to  all  the  equal  enjoyment  of  God’s  bounty,  the  abundant 
opportunity  to  satisfy  their  wants,  and  would  provide 
amply  for  every  legitimate  need  of  the  state.  We  see 
that  God  in  his  dealings  with  men  has  not  been  a 
bungler  or  a  niggard ;  that  he  has  not  brought  too  many 
men  into  the  world ;  that  he  has  not  neglected  abun¬ 
dantly  to  supply  them;  that  he  has  not  intended  that 
bitter  competition  of  the  masses  for  a  mere  animal 
existence  and  that  monstrous  aggregation  of  wealth 
which  characterize  our  civilization ;  but  that  these  evils 
which  lead  so  many  to  say  there  is  no  God,  or  yet  more 
impiously  to  say  that  they  are  of  God’s  ordering,  are  due 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


21 


to  our  denial  of  liis  moral  law.  We  see  that  the  law  of 
justice,  the  law  of  the  Golden  Rule,  is  not  a  mere  counsel 
of  perfection,  but  indeed  the  law  of  social  life.  We  see 
that  if  we  were  only  to  observe  it  there  would  be  work 
for  all,  leisure  for  all,  abundance  for  all ;  and  that  civili¬ 
zation  would  tend  to  give  to  the  poorest  not  only  neces¬ 
saries,  but  all  comforts  and  reasonable  luxuries  as  well. 
We  see  that  Christ  was  not  a  mere  dreamer  when  he  told 
men  that  if  they  would  seek  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its 
right-doing  they  might  no  more  worry  about  material 
things  than  do  the  lilies  of  the  field  about  their  raiment  ; 
but  that  he  was  only  declaring  what  political  economy  in 
the  light  of  modern  discovery  shows  to  be  a  sober  truth. 

Your  Holiness,  even  to  see  this  is  deep  and  lasting  joy. 
For  it  is  to  see  for  one’s  self  that  there  is  a  God  who  lives 
and  reigns,  and  that  he  is  a  God  of  justice  and  love— Our 
Father  who  art  in  Heaven.  It  is  to  open  a  rift  of  sun¬ 
light  through  the  clouds  of  our  darker  questionings,  and 
to  make  the  faith  that  trusts  where  it  cannot  see  a  living 
thing. 


II. 

Your  Holiness  will  see  from  the  explanation  I  have 
given  that  the  reform  we  propose,  like  all  true  reforms, 
has  both  an  ethical  and  an  economic  side.  By  ignoring 
the  ethical  side,  and  pushing  our  proposal  merely  as  a 
reform  of  taxation,  we  could  avoid  the  objections  that 
arise  from  confounding  ownership  with  possession  and 
attributing  to  private  property  in  land  that  security  of 
use  and  improvement  that  can  be  had  even  better  without 
it.  All  that  we  seek  practically  is  the  legal  abolition,  as 
fast  as  possible,  of  taxes  on  the  products  and  processes 
of  labor,  and  the  consequent  concentration  of  taxation 


22 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


on  land  values  irrespective  of  improvements.  To  put  our 
proposals  in  this  way  would  be  to  urge  them  merely  as  a 
matter  of  wise  public  expediency. 

There  are  indeed  many  single-tax  men  who  do  put  our 
proposals  in  this  way;  who  seeing  the  beauty  of  our 
plan  from  a  fiscal  standpoint  do  not  concern  themselves 
further.  But  to  those  who  think  as  I  do,  the  ethical  is 
the  more  important  side.  Not  only  do  we  not  wish  to 
evade  the  question  of  private  property  in  land,  but  to  us 
it  seems  that  the  beneficent  and  far-reaching  revolution 
we  aim  at  is  too  great  a  thing  to  be  accomplished  by 
“  intelligent  self-interest/7  and  can  be  carried  by  nothing 
less  than  the  religious  conscience. 

Hence  we  earnestly  seek  the  judgment  of  religion. 
This  is  the  tribunal  of  which  your  Holiness  as  the  head 
of  the  largest  body  of  Christians  is  the  most  august 
representative. 

It  therefore  behooves  us  to  examine  the  reasons  you 
urge  in  support  of  private  property  in  land— if  they  be 
sound  to  accept  them,  and  if  they  be  not  sound  respect¬ 
fully  to  point  out  to  you  wherein  is  their  error. 

To  your  proposition  that  “  Our  first  and  most  funda¬ 
mental  principle  when  we  undertake  to  alleviate  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  masses  must  be  the  inviolability  of  private 
property”  we  would  joyfully  agree  if  we  could  only 
understand  you  to  have  in  mind  the  moral  element,  and 
to  mean  rightful  private  property,  as  when  you  speak 
of  marriage  as  ordained  by  God’s  authority  we  may 
understand  an  implied  exclusion  of  improper  marriages. 
Unfortunately,  however,  other  expressions  show  that  you 
mean  private  property  in  general  and  have  expressly 
in  mind  private  property  in  land.  This  confusion  of 
thought,  this  non-distribution  of  terms,  runs  through 
your  whole  argument,  leading  you  to  conclusions  so 
unwarranted  by  your  premises  as  to  be  utterly  repugnant 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


23 


to  them,  as  when  from  the  moral  sanction  of  private 
property  in  the  things  produced  by  labor  you  infer  some¬ 
thing  entirely  different  and  utterly  opposed,  a  similar 
right  of  property  in  the  land  created  by  God. 

Private  property  is  not  of  one  species,  and  moral  sanc¬ 
tion  can  no  more  be  asserted  universally  of  it  than  of 
marriage.  That  proper  marriage  conforms  to  the  law  of 
God  does  not  justify  the  polygamic  or  polyandric  or 
incestuous  marriages  that  are  in  some  countries  permitted 
by  the  civil  law.  And  as  there  may  be  immoral  marriage 
so  may  there  be  immoral  private  property.  Private  prop¬ 
erty  is  that  which  may  be  held  in  ownership  by  an  indi¬ 
vidual,  or  that  which  may  be  held  in  ownership  by  an 
individual  with  the  sanction  of  the  state.  The  mere 
lawyer,  the  mere  servant  of  the  state,  may  rest  here, 
refusing  to  distinguish  between  what  the  state  holds 
equally  lawful.  Your  Holiness,  however,  is  not  a  servant 
of  the  state,  but  a  servant  of  God,  a  guardian  of  morals. 
You  know,  as  said  by  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  that— 

Human  law  is  law  only  in  virtue  of  its  accordance  with  right 
reason  and  it  is  thus  manifest  that  it  flows  from  the  eternal  law. 
And  in  so  far  as  it  deviates  from  right  reason  it  is  called  an  unjust 
law.  In  such  case  it  is  not  law  at  all ,  but  rather  a  species  of  violence. 

Thus,  that  any  species  of  property  is  permitted  by  the 
state  does  not  of  itself  give  it  moral  sanction.  The  state 
has  often  made  things  property  that  are  not  justly 
property,  but  involve  violence  and  robbery.  For 
instance,  the  things  of  religion,  the  dignity  and  authority 
of  offices  of  the  church,  the  power  of  administering  her 
sacraments  and  controlling  her  temporalities,  have  often 
by  profligate  princes  been  given  as  salable  property  to 
courtiers  and  concubines.  At  this  very  day  in  England 
an  atheist  or  a  heathen  may  buy  in  open  market,  and 
hold  as  legal  property,  to  be  sold,  given  or  bequeathed 


24 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


as  he  pleases,  the  power  of  appointing  to  the  cure  of 
souls,  and  the  value  of  these  legal  rights  of  presentation 
is  said  to  be  no  less  than  £17,000,000. 

Or  again :  Slaves  were  universally  treated  as  property 
by  the  customs  and  laws  of  the  classical  nations,  and 
were  so  acknowledged  in  Europe  long  after  the  accep¬ 
tance  of  Christianity.  At  the  beginning  of  this  century 
there  was  no  Christian  nation  that  did  not,  in  her  col¬ 
onies  at  least,  recognize  property  in  slaves,  and  slave- 
ships  crossed  the  seas  under  Christian  flags.  In  the 
United  States,  little  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  to  buy  a 
man  gave  the  same  legal  ownership  as  to  buy  a  horse, 
and  in  Mohammedan  countries  law  and  custom  yet  make 
the  slave  the  property  of  his  captor  or  purchaser. 

Yet  your  Holiness,  one  of  the  glories  of  whose  pontifi¬ 
cate  is  the  attempt  to  break  up  slavery  in  its  last  strong¬ 
holds,  will  not  contend  that  the  moral  sanction  that 
attaches  to  property  in  things  produced  by  labor  can,  or 
ever  could,  apply  to  property  in  slaves. 

Your  use,  in  so  many  passages  of  your  Encyclical,  of 
the  inclusive  term  “ property’7  or  “private’7  property, 
of  which  in  morals  nothing  can  be  either  affirmed  or 
denied,  makes  your  meaning,  if  we  take  isolated  sen¬ 
tences,  in  many  places  ambiguous.  But  reading  it  as  a 
whole,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  your  intention  that 
private  property  in  land  shall  be  understood  when  you 
speak  merely  of  private  property.  With  this  interpreta¬ 
tion,  I  find  that  the  reasons  you  urge  for  private  property 
in  land  are  eight.  Let  us  consider  them  in  order  of  pres¬ 
entation.  You  urge: 

1.  That  what  is  bought  with  rightful  property  is  rightful 
property.  (5.)* 

*  To  facilitate  references  the  paragraphs  of  the  Encyclical  are 
indicated  by  number. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


25 


Clearly,  purchase  and  sale  cannot  give,  but  can  only 
transfer  ownership.  Property  that  in  itself  has  no  moral 
sanction  does  not  obtain  moral  sanction  by  passing  from 
seller  to  buyer. 

If  right  reason  does  not  make  the  slave  the  property 
of  the  slave-hunter  it  does  not  make  him  the  property 
of  the  slave-buyer.  Yet  your  reasoning  as  to  private 
property  in  land  would  as  well  justify  property  in  slaves. 
To  show  this  it  is  only  needful  to  change  in  your  argu¬ 
ment  the  word  land  to  the  word  slave.  It  would  then 
read  : 

It  is  surely  undeniable  that,  when  a  man  engages  in  remunerative 
labor,  the  very  reason  and  motive  of  his  work  is  to  obtain  property, 
and  to  hold  it  as  his  own  private  x>ossession. 

If  one  man  hires  out  to  another  his  strength  or  his  industry,  he  does 
this  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  in  return  what  is  necessary  for  food 
and  living ;  he  thereby  expressly  proposes  to  acquire  a  full  and  legal 
right,  not  only  to  the  remuneration,  but  also  to  the  disposal  of  that 
remuneration  as  he  pleases. 

Thus,  if  he  lives  sparingly,  saves  money,  and  invests  his  savings, 
for  greater  security,  in  a  slave,  the  slave  in  such  a  case  is  only  his 
wages  in  another  form  ;  and  consequent  ly,  a  working-man’s  slave  thus 
purchased  should  be  as  completely  at  his  own  disposal  as  the  wages 
he  receives  for  his  labor. 

Nor  in  turning  your  argument  for  private  property  in 
land  into  an  argument  for  private  property  in  men  am  I 
doing  a  new  thing.  In  my  own  country,  in  my  own  time, 
this  very  argument,  that  purchase  gave  ownership,  was 
the  common  defense  of  slavery.  It  was  made  by  states¬ 
men,  by  jurists,  by  clergymen,  by  bishops;  it  was 
accepted  over  the  whole  country  by  the  great  mass  of 
the  people.  By  it  was  justified  the  separation  of  wives 
from  husbands,  of  children  from  parents,  the  compelling 
of  labor,  the  appropriation  of  its  fruits,  the  buying  and 
selling  of  Christians  by  Christians.  In  language  almost 
identical  with  yours  it  was  asked,  “Here  is  a  poor  man 


26 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


who  has  worked  hard,  lived  sparingly,  and  invested  his 
savings  in  a  few  slaves.  Would  you  rob  him  of  his 
earnings  by  liberating  those  slaves  ?  ”  Or  it  was  said : 
“Here  is  a  poor  widow;  all  her  husband  has  been  able 
to  leave  her  is  a  few  negroes,  the  earnings  of  his  hard 
toil.  Would  you  rob  the  widow  and  the  orphan  by 
freeing  these  negroes  ? 77  And  because  of  this  perversion 
of  reason,  this  confounding  of  unjust  property  rights 
with  just  property  rights,  this  acceptance  of  man’s  law 
as  though  it  were  God’s  law,  there  came  on  our  nation  a 
judgment  of  fire  and  blood. 

The  error  of  our  people  in  thinking  that  what  in  itself 
was  not  rightfully  property  could  become  rightful  prop¬ 
erty  by  purchase  and  sale  is  the  same  error  into  which 
your  Holiness  falls.  It  is  not  merely  formally  the  same ; 
it  is  essentially  the  same.  Private  property  in  land,  no 
less  than  private  property  in  slaves,  is  a  violation  of  the 
true  rights  of  property.  They  are  different  forms  of  the 
same  robbery;  twin  devices  by  which  the  perverted 
ingenuity  of  man  has  sought  to  enable  the  strong  and 
the  cunning  to  escape  God’s  requirement  of  labor  by 
forcing  it  on  others. 

What  difference  does  it  make  whether  I  merely  own 
the  land  on  which  another  man  must  live  or  own  the 
man  himself?  Am  I  not  in  the  one  case  as  much  his 
master  as  in  the  other?  Can  I  not  compel  him  to  work 
for  me  ?  Can  I  not  take  to  myself  as  much  of  the  fruits 
of  his  labor;  as  fully  dictate  his  actions?  Have  I  not 
over  him  the  power  of  life  and  death  ?  For  to  deprive  a 
man  of  land  is  as  certainly  to  kill  him  as  to  deprive  him 
of  blood  by  opening  his  veins,  or  of  air  by  tightening  a 
halter  around  his  neck. 

The  essence  of  slavery  is  in  empowering  one  man  to 
obtain  the  labor  of  another  without  recompense.  Private 
property  in  land  does  this  as  fully  as  chattel  slavery. 


.  OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


27 


The  slave-owner  must  leave  to  the  slave  enough  of  his 
earnings  to  enable  him  to  live.  Are  there  not  in  so- 
called  free  countries  great  bodies  of  working-men  who 
get  no  more?  How  much  more  of  the  fruits  of  their 
toil  do  the  agricultural  laborers  of  Italy  and  England  get 
than  did  the  slaves  of  our  Southern  States?  Did  not 
private  property  in  land  permit  the  landowner  of  Europe 
in  ruder  times  to  demand  the  jus  primes  noctis  f  Does 
not  the  same  last  outrage  exist  to-day  in  diffused  form 
in  the  immorality  born  of  monstrous  wealth  on  the  one 
hand  and  ghastly  poverty  on  the  other  ? 

In  what  did  the  slavery  of  Russia  consist  but  in  giving 
to  the  master  land  on  which  the  serf  was  forced  to  live  ? 
When  an  Ivan  or  a  Catherine  enriched  their  favorites 
with  the  labor  of  others  they  did  not  give  men,  they  gave 
land.  And  when  the  appropriation  of  land  has  gone  so 
far  that  no  free  land  remains  to  which  the  landless  man 
may  turn,  then  without  further  violence  the  more  insidi¬ 
ous  form  of  labor  robbery  involved  in  private  property 
in  land  takes  the  place  of  chattel  slavery,  because  more 
economical  and  convenient.  For  under  it  the  slave  does 
not  have  to  be  caught  or  held,  or  to  be  fed  when  not 
needed.  He  comes  of  himself,  begging  the  privilege  of 
serving,  and  when  no  longer  wanted  can  be  discharged. 
The  lash  is  unnecessary;  hunger  is  as  efficacious.  This 
is  why  the  Norman  conquerors  of  England  and  the  Eng¬ 
lish  conquerors  of  Ireland  did  not  divide  up  the  people, 
but  divided  the  land.  This  is  why  European  slave-ships 
took  their  cargoes  to  the  New  World,  not  to  Europe. 

Slavery  is  not  yet  abolished.  Though  in  all  Christian 
countries  its  ruder  form  has  now  gone,  it  still  exists  in 
the  heart  of  our  civilization  in  more  insidious  form,  and 
is  increasing.  There  is  work  to  be  done  for  the  glory  of 
God  and  the  liberty  of  man  by  other  soldiers  of  the  cross 
than  those  warrior  monks  whom,  with  the  blessing  of 


28 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


your  Holiness,  Cardinal  Lavigerie  is  sending  into  the 
Sahara.  Yet,  your  Encyclical  employs  in  defense  of  one 
form  of  slavery  the  same  fallacies  that  the  apologists  for 
chattel  slavery  used  in  defense  of  the  other ! 

The  Arabs  are  not  wanting  in  acumen.  Your  Encyc¬ 
lical  reaches  far.  What  shall  your  warrior  monks  say,  if 
when  at  the  muzzle  of  their  rifles  they  demand  of  some 
Arab  slave-merchant  his  miserable  caravan,  he  shall 
declare  that  he  bought  them  with  his  savings,  and  pro¬ 
ducing  a  copy  of  your  Encyclical,  shall  prove  by  your 
reasoning  that  his  slaves  are  consequently  “  only  his  wages 
in  another  form/’  and  ask  if  they  who  bear  your  blessing 
and  own  your  authority  propose  to  u  deprive  him  of  the 
liberty  of  disposing  of  his  wages  and  thus  of  all  hope 
and  possibility  of  increasing  his  stock  and  bettering  his 
condition  in  life’7? 

2.  That  private  property  in  land  proceeds  from  man's  gift 
of  reason.  (6-7.) 

In  the  second  place  your  Holiness  argues  that  man 
possessing  reason  and  forethought  may  not  only  acquire 
ownership  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  but  also  of  the  earth 
itself,  so  that  out  of  its  products  he  may  make  provision 
for  the  future. 

Reason,  with  its  attendant  forethought,  is  indeed  the 
distinguishing  attribute  of  man;  that  which  raises  him 
above  the  brute,  and  shows,  as  the  Scriptures  declare, 
that  he  is  created  in  the  likeness  of  God.  And  this  gift 
of  reason  does,  as  your  Holiness  points  out,  involve  the 
need  and  right  of  private  property  in  whatever  is  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  exertion  of  reason  and  its  attendant  fore¬ 
thought,  as  well  as  in  what  is  produced  by  physical  labor. 
In  truth,  these  elements  of  man’s  production  are  insepa¬ 
rable,  and  labor  involves  the  use  of  reason.  It  is  by  his 
reason  that  man  differs  from  the  animals  in  being  a 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


29 


producer,  and  in  this  sense  a  maker.  Of  themselves  his 
physical  powers  are  slight,  forming  as  it  were  hut  the 
connection  by  which  the  mind  takes  hold  of  material 
things,  so  as  to  utilize  to  its  will  the  matter  and  forces 
of  nature.  It  is  mind,  the  intelligent  reason,  that  is  the 
prime  mover  in  labor,  the  essential  agent  in  production. 

The  right  of  private  ownership  does  therefore  indis¬ 
putably  attach  to  things  provided  by  man’s  reason  and 
forethought.  But  it  cannot  attach  to  things  provided  by 
the  reason  and  forethought  of  God ! 

To  illustrate :  Let  us  suppose  a  company  traveling 
through  the  desert  as  the  Israelites  traveled  from  Egypt. 
Such  of  them  as  had  the  forethought  to  provide  them¬ 
selves  with  vessels  of  water  would  acquire  a  just  right 
of  property  in  the  water  so  carried,  and  in  the  thirst  of 
the  waterless  desert  those  who  had  neglected  to  provide 
themselves,  though  they  might  ask  water  from  the  provi¬ 
dent  in  charity,  could  not  demand  it  in  right.  For  while 
water  itself  is  of  the  providence  of  God,  the  presence  of 
this  water  in  such  vessels,  at  such  place,  results  from  the 
providence  of  the  men  who  carried  it.  Thus  they  have 
to  it  an  exclusive  right. 

But  suppose  others  use  their  forethought  in  pushing 
ahead  and  appropriating  the  springs,  refusing  when  their 
fellows  come  up  to  let  them  drink  of  the  water  save  as 
they  buy  it  of  them.  Would  such  forethought  give  any 
right  ? 

Your  Holiness,  it  is  not  the  forethought  of  carrying 
water  wdiere  it  is  needed,  but  the  forethought  of  seizing 
springs,  that  you  seek  to  defend  in  defending  the  private 
ownership  of  land ! 

Let  me  show  this  more  fully,  since  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  meet  those  who  say  that  if  private  property  in 
land  be  not  just,  then  private  property  in  the  products 
of  labor  is  not  just,  as  the  material  of  these  products  is 


30 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


taken  from  land.  It  will  be  seen  on  consideration  that 
all  of  man’s  production  is  analogous  to  such  transporta¬ 
tion  of  water  as  we  have  supposed.  In  growing  grain, 
or  smelting  metals,  or  building  houses,  or  weaving  cloth, 
or  doing  any  of  the  things  that  constitute  producing,  all 
that  man  does  is  to  change  in  place  or  form  preexisting 
matter.  As  a  producer  man  is  merely  a  changer,  not  a 
creator;  God  alone  creates.  And  since  the  changes  in 
which  man’s  production  consists  inhere  in  matter  so  long 
as  they  persist,  the  right  of  private  ownership  attaches 
the  accident  to  the  essence,  and  gives  the  right  of  owner¬ 
ship  in  that  natural  material  in  which  the  labor  of  pro¬ 
duction  is  embodied.  Thus  water,  which  in  its  original 
form  and  place  is  the  common  gift  of  God  to  all  men, 
when  drawn  from  its  natural  reservoir  and  brought  into 
the  desert,  passes  rightfully  into  the  ownership  of  the 
individual  who  by  changing  its  place  has  produced  it  there. 

But  such  right  of  ownership  is  in  reality  a  mere  right 
of  temporary  possession.  For  though  man  may  take 
material  from  the  storehouse  of  nature  and  change  it  in 
place  or  form  to  suit  his  desires,  yet  from  the  moment  he 
takes  it,  it  tends  back  to  that  storehouse  again.  Wood 
decays,  iron  rusts,  stone  disintegrates  and  is  displaced, 
while  of  more  perishable  products,  some  will  last  for  only 
a  few  months,  others  for  only  a  few  days,  and  some  dis¬ 
appear  immediately  on  use.  Though,  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  matter  is  eternal  and  force  forever  persists ;  though 
we  can  neither  annihilate  nor  create  the  tiniest  mote  that 
floats  in  a  sunbeam  or  the  faintest  impulse  that  stirs  a 
leaf,  yet  in  the  ceaseless  flux  of  nature,  man’s  work  of 
moving  and  combining  constantly  passes  away.  Thus 
the  recognition  of  the  ownership  of  what  natural  material 
is  embodied  in  the  products  of  man  never  constitutes 
more  than  temporary  possession— never  interferes  witji 
the  reservoir  provided  for  all.  As  taking  water  from 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


31 


one  place  and  carrying  it  to  another  place  by  no  means 
lessens  the  store  of  water,  since  whether  it  is  drunk  or 
spilled  or  left  to  evaporate,  it  must  return  again  to  the 
natural  reservoirs— so  is  it  with  all  things  on  which  man 
in  production  can  lay  the  impress  of  his  labor. 

Hence,  when  you  say  that  man’s  reason  puts  it  within 
his  right  to  have  in  stable  and  permanent  possession  not 
only  things  that  perish  in  the  using,  but  also  those  that 
remain  for  use  in  the  future,  you  are  right  in  so  far  as 
you  may  include  such  things  as  buildings,  which  with 
repair  will  last  for  generations,  with  such  things  as  food 
or  fire-wood,  which  are  destroyed  in  the  use.  But  when 
you  infer  that  man  can  have  private  ownership  in  those 
permanent  things  of  nature  that  are  the  reservoirs  from 
which  all  must  draw,  you  are  clearly  wrong.  Man  may 
indeed  hold  in  private  ownership  the  fruits  of  the  earth 
produced  by  his  labor,  since  they  lose  in  time  the  impress 
of  that  labor,  and  pass  again  into  the  natural  reservoirs 
from  which  they  were  taken,  and  thus  the  ownership  of 
them  by  one  works  no  injury  to  others.  But  he  cannot 
so  own  the  earth  itself,  for  that  is  the  reservoir  from 
which  must  constantly  be  drawn  not  only  the  material  with 
which  alone  men  can  produce,  but  even  their  very  bodies. 

The  conclusive  reason  why  man  cannot  claim  owner¬ 
ship  in  the  earth  itself  as  he  can  in  the  fruits  that  lie  by 
labor  brings  forth  from  it,  is  in  the  facts  stated  by  you 
in  the  very  next  paragraph  (7),  when  you  truly  say : 

Man’s  needs  do  not  die  out,  but  recur;  satisfied  to-day,  they 
demand  new  supplies  to-morrow.  Nature ,  therefore ,  owes  to  man  a 
storehouse  that  shall  never  fail,  the  daily  supply  of  his  daily  wants.  And 
this  he  finds  only  in  the  inexhaustible  fertility  of  the  earth. 

By  man  you  mean  all  men.  Can  what  nature  owes  to 
all  men  be  made  the  private  property  of  some  men,  from 
which  they  may  debar  all  other  men  ? 


32 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


Let  me  dwell  on  the  words  of  your  Holiness,  “Nature, 
therefore,  owes  to  man  a  storehouse  that  shall  never  fail.” 
By  Nature  you  mean  God.  Thus  your  thought,  that  in 
creating  us,  God  himself  has  incurred  an  obligation  to 
provide  us  with  a  storehouse  that  shall  never  fail,  is  the 
same  as  is  thus  expressed  and  carried  to  its  irresistible 
conclusion  by  the  Bishop  of  Meath : 

• 

God  was  perfectly  free  in  the  act  by  which  He  created  us ;  but 
having  created  us  he  bound  himself  by  that  act  to  provide  us  with 
the  means  necessary  for  our  subsistence.  The  land  is  the  only  source 
of  this  kind  now  known  to  us.  The  land,  therefore,  of  every  country 
is  the  common  property  of  the  people  of  that  country,  because  its  real 
owner,  the  Creator  who  made  it,  has  transferred  it  as  a  voluntary 
gift  to  them.  “  Terrain  autem  dedit  filiis  hominum.”  Now,  as  every 
individual  in  that  country  is  a  creature  and  child  of  God,  and  as  all 
his  creatures  are  equal  in  his  sight,  any  settlement  of  the  land  of  a 
country  that  would  exclude  the  humblest  man  in  that  country  from 
his  share  of  the  common  inheritance  would  be  not  only  an  injustice 
and  a  wrong  to  that  man,  but,  moreover,  be  an  impious  resistance 

TO  THE  BENEVOLENT  INTENTIONS  OF  HIS  CREATOR. 

3.  That  private  property  in  land  deprives  no  one  of  the  use 
of  land.  (8.) 

Your  own  statement  that  land  is  the  inexhaustible 
storehouse  that  God  owes  to  man  must  have  aroused  in 
your  Holiness’s  mind  an  uneasy  questioning  of  its  appro¬ 
priation  as  private  property,  for,  as  though  to  reassure 
yourself,  you  proceed  to  argue  that  its  ownership  by 
some  will  not  injure  others.  You  say  in  substance,  that 
even  though  divided  among  private  owners  the  earth 
does  not  cease  to  minister  to  the  needs  of  all,  since  those 
who  do  not  possess  the  soil  can  by  selling  their  labor 
obtain  in  payment  the  produce  of  the  land. 

Suppose  that  to  your  Holiness  as  a  judge  of  morals 
one  should  put  this  case  of  conscience : 

I  am  one  of  several  children  to  whom  our  father  left  a  field  abun¬ 
dant  for  our  support.  As  he  assigned  no  part  of  it  to  any  one  of  us 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


33 


in  particular,  leaving  the  limits  of  our  separate  possession  to  be  fixed 
by  ourselves,  I  being  the  eldest  took  the  whole  field  in  exclusive 
ownership.  But  in  doing  so  I  have  not  deprived  my  brothers  of 
their  support  from  it,  for  I  have  let  them  work  for  me  on  it,  paying 
them  from  the  produce  as  much  wages  as  I  would  have  had  to  pay 
strangers.  Is  there  any  reason  why  my  conscience  should  not  be 
clear? 

What  would  be  your  answer?  Would  you  not  tell  him 
that  he  was  in  mortal  sin,  and  that  his  excuse  added  to 
his  guilt?  Would  you  not  call  on  him  to  make  restitu¬ 
tion  and  to  do  penance  ? 

Or,  suppose  that  as  a  temporal  prince  your  Holiness 
were  ruler  of  a  rainless  land,  such  as  Egypt,  where  there 
were  no  springs  or  brooks,  their  want  being  supplied  by 
a  bountiful  river  like  the  Nile.  Supposing  that  having 
sent  a  number  of  your  subjects  to  make  fruitful  this 
land,  bidding  them  do  justly  and  prosper,  you  were  told 
that  some  of  them  had  set  up  a  claim  of  ownership  in 
the  river,  refusing  the  others  a  drop  of  water,  except  as 
they  bought  it  of  them ;  and  that  thus  they  had  become 
rich  without  work,  while  the  others,  though  working 
hard,  were  so  impoverished  by  paying  for  water  as  to  be 
hardly  able  to  exist  ? 

Would  not  your  indignation  wax  hot  when  this  was  told  ? 

Suppose  that  then  the  river-owners  should  send  to  you 
and  thus  excuse  their  action  : 

The  river,  though  divided  among  private  owners,  ceases  not 
thereby  to  minister  to  the  needs  of  all,  for  there  is  no  one  who  drinks 
who  does  not  drink  of  the  water  of  the  river.  Those  who  do  not  pos¬ 
sess  the  water  of  the  river  contribute  their  labor  to  get  it ;  so  that  it 
may  be  truly  said  that  all  water  is  supplied  either  from  one’s  own 
river,  or  from  some  laborious  industry  which  is  paid  for  either  in  the 
water,  or  in  that  which  is  exchanged  for  the  w^ater. 

Would  the  indignation  of  your  Holiness  be  abated? 
Would  it  not  wax  fiercer  yet  for  the  insult  to  your  intel¬ 
ligence  of  this  excuse  ? 


34 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


I  do  not  need  more  formally  to  show  your  Holiness 
that  between  utterly  depriving  a  man  of  God’s  gifts  and 
depriving  him  of  God’s  gifts  unless  he  will  buy  them,  is 
merely  the  difference  between  the  robber  who  leaves  his 
victim  to  die  and  the  robber  who  puts  him  to  ransom.  But  I 
would  like  to  point  out  how  your  statement  that  u  the  earth, 
though  divided  among  private  owners,  ceases  not  thereby 
to  minister  to  the  needs  of  all  ”  overlooks  the  largest  facts. 

From  your  palace  of  the  Vatican  the  eye  may  rest  on 
the  expanse  of  the  Campagna,  where  the  pious  toil  of 
religious  congregations  and  the  efforts  of  the  state  are 
only  now  beginning  to  make  it  possible  for  men  to  live. 
Once  that  expanse  was  tilled  by  thriving  husbandmen 
and  dotted  with  smiling  hamlets.  What  for  centuries 
has  condemned  it  to  desertion?  History  tells  us.  It 
was  private  property  in  land;  the  growth  of  the  great 
estates  of  which  Pliny  saw  that  ancient  Italy  was  perish¬ 
ing;  the  cause  that,  by  bringing  failure  to  the  crop  of 
men,  let  in  the  Goths  and  Vandals,  gave  Roman  Britain 
to  the  worship  of  Odin  and  Thor,  and  in  what  were  once 
the  rich  and  populous  provinces  of  the  East  shivered  the 
thinned  ranks  and  palsied  arms  of  the  legions  on  the 
simitars  of  Mohammedan  hordes,  and  in  the  sepulcher 
of  our  Lord  and  in  the  Church  of  St.  Sophia  trampled 
the  cross  to  rear  the  crescent ! 

If  you  will  go  to  Scotland,  you  may  see  great  tracts 
that  under  the  Gaelic  tenure,  which  recognized  the  right 
of  each  to  a  foothold  in  the  soil,  bred  sturdy  men,  but  that 
how,  under  the  recognition  of  private  property  in  land,  are 
given  up  to  wild  animals.  If  you  go  to  Ireland,  your  Bish¬ 
ops  will  show  you,  on  lands  where  now  only  beasts  graze, 
the  traces  of  hamlets  that,  when  they  were  young  priests, 
were  filled  with  honest,  kindly,  religious  people.* 

*  Let  any  one  who  wishes  visit  this  diocese  and  see  with  his  own 
eyes  the  vast  and  boundless  extent  of  the  fairest  land  in  Europe 
that  has  been  ruthlessly  depopulated  since  the  commencement  of  the 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


35 


If  you  will  come  to  the  United  States,  you  will  find  in 
a  land  wide  enough  and  rich  enough  to  support  in  com¬ 
fort  the  whole  population  of  Europe,  the  growth  of  a 
sentiment  that  looks  with  evil  eye  on  immigration, 
because  the  artificial  scarcity  that  results  from  private 
property  in  land  makes  it  seem  as  if  there  is  not  room 
enough  and  work  enough  for  those  already  here. 

Or  go  to  the  Antipodes,  and  in  Australia,  as  in  Eng¬ 
land,  you  may  see  that  private  property  in  land  is  oper¬ 
ating  to  leave  the  land  barren  and  to  crowd  the  bulk  of 
the  population  into  great  cities.  Go  wherever  you  please 
where  the  forces  loosed  by  modern  invention  are  begin¬ 
ning  to  be  felt  and  you  may  see  that  private  property  in 
land  is  the  curse,  denounced  by  the  prophet,  that  prompts 
men  to  lay  field  to  field  till  they  “  alone  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  the  earth.” 

To  the  mere  materialist  this  is  sin  and  shame.  Shall 
we  to  whom  this  world  is  God’s  world— we  who  hold  that 
man  is  called  to  this  life  only  as  a  prelude  to  a  higher 
life— shall  we  defend  it? 

4.  That  Industry  expended  on  land  gives  ownership  in  the 
land  itself.  (9-10.) 

Your  Holiness  next  contends  that  industry  expended 
on  land  gives  a  right  to  ownership  of  the  land,  and  that 
the  improvement  of  land  creates  benefits  indistinguishable 
and  inseparable  from  the  land  itself. 

This  contention,  if  valid,  could  only  justify  the  owner¬ 
ship  of  land  by  those  who  expend  industry  on  it.  It 
would  not  justify  private  property  in  land  as  it  exists. 


present  century,  and  which  is  now  abandoned  to  a  loneliness  and 
solitude  more  depressing  than  that- of  the  prairie  or  the  wilderness. 
Thus  has  this  land  system  actually  exercised  the  power  of  life  and 
death  on  a  vast  scale,  for  which  there  is  no  parallel  even  in  the  dark 
records  of  slavery.—  Bishop  Nutty’ s  Letter  to  the  Clergy  mid  Laity  of 
the  Diocese  of  Meath.  — 


36 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


On  the  contrary,  it  would  justify  a  gigantic  no-rent 
declaration  that  would  take  land  from  those  who  now 
legally  own  it,  the  landlords,  and  turn  it  over  to  the 
tenants  and  laborers.  And  if  it  also  be  that  improve¬ 
ments  cannot  be  distinguished  and  separated  from  the 
land  itself,  how  could  the  landlords  claim  consideration 
even  for  improvements  they  had  made  ?  • 

But  your  Holiness  cannot  mean  what  your  words 
imply.  What  you  really  mean,  I  take  it,  is  that  the 
original  justification  and  title  of  landownership  is  in  the 
expenditure  of  labor  on  it.  But  neither  can  this  justify 
private  property  in  land  as  it  exists.  For  is  it  not  all  but 
universally  true  that  existing  land  titles  do  not  come 
from  use,  but  from  force  or  fraud  ? 

Take  Italy !  Is  it  not  true  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
land  of  Italy  is  held  by  those  who  so  far  from  ever  having 
expended  industry  on  it  have  been  mere  appropriates  of 
the  industry  of  those  who  have?  Is  this  not  also  true 
of  Great  Britain  and  of  other  countries?  Even  in  the 
United  States,  where  the  forces  of  concentration  have 
not  yet  had  time  fully  to  operate  and  there  has  been 
some  attempt  to  give  land  to  users,  it  is  probably  true 
to-day  that  the  greater  part  of  the  land  is  held  by  those 
who  neither  use  it  nor  propose  to  use  it  themselves,  but 
merely  hold  it  to  compel  others  to  pay  them  for  permis¬ 
sion  to  use  it. 

And  if  industry  give  ownership  to  land  what  are  the 
limits  of  this  ownership?  If  a  man  may  acquire  the 
ownership  of  several  square  miles  of  land  by  grazing 
sheep  on  it,  does  this  give  to  him  and  his  heirs  the 
ownership  of  the  same  land  when  it  is  found  to  contain 
rich  mines,  or  when  by  the  growth  of  population  and  the 
progress  of  society  it  is  needed  for  farming,  for  garden¬ 
ing,  for  the  close  occupation  of  a  great  city?  Is  it  on 
the  rights  given  by  the  industry  of  those  who  first  used 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


37 


it  for  grazing  cows  or  growing  potatoes  that  yon  would 
found  the  title  to  the  land  now  covered  by  the  city  of  New 
York  and  having  a  value  of  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  ? 

But  your  contention  is  not  valid.  Industry  expended 
on  land  gives  ownership  in  the  fruits  of  that  industry, 
but  not  in  the  land  itself,  just  as  industry  expended  on 
the  ocean  would  give  a  right  of  ownership  to  the  fish 
taken  by  it,  but  not  a  right  of  ownership  in  the  ocean. 
Nor  yet  is  it  true  that  private  ownership  of  land  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  secure  the  fruits  of  labor  on  land;  nor  does  the 
improvement  of  land  create  benefits  indistinguishable 
and  inseparable  from  the  land  itself.  That  secure  pos¬ 
session  is  necessary  to  the  use  and  improvement  of  land 
I  have  already  explained,  but  that  ownership  is  not 
necessary  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  all  civilized  coun¬ 
tries  land  owned  by  one  person  is  cultivated  and 
improved  by  other  persons.  Most  of  the  cultivated  land 
in  the  British  Islands,  as  in  Italy  and  other  countries,  is 
cultivated  not  by  owners  but  by  tenants.  And  so  the 
costliest  buildings  are  erected  by  those  who  are  not 
owners  of  the  land,  but  who  have  from  the  owner  a  mere 
right  of  possession  for  a  time  on  condition  of  certain 
payments.  Nearly  the  whole  of  London  has  been  built 
in  this  way,  and  in  New  York,  Chicago,  Denver,  San 
Francisco,  Sydney  and  Melbourne,  as  well  as  in  conti¬ 
nental  cities,  the  owners  of  many  of  the  largest  edifices 
will  be  found  to  be  different  persons  from  the  owners  of 
the  ground.  So  far  from  the  value  of  improvements 
being  inseparable  from  the  value  of  land,  it  is  in  indi¬ 
vidual  transactions  constantly  separated.  For  instance, 
one-half  of  the  land  on  which  the  immense  Grand  Pacific 
Hotel  in  Chicago  stands  was  recently  separately  sold, 
and  in  Ceylon  it  is  a  not  infrequent  occurrence  for  one 
person  to  own  a  fruit-tree  and  another  to  own  the  ground 
in  which  it  is  implanted. 


38 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


There  is,  indeed,  no  improvement  of  land,  whether  it 
be  clearing,  plowing,  manuring,  cultivating,  the  digging 
of  cellars,  the  opening  of  wells  or  the  building  of  houses, 
that  so  long  as  its  usefulness  continues  does  not  have  a 
value  clearly  distinguishable  from  the  value  of  the  land. 
For  land  having  such  improvements  will  always  sell  or 
rent  for  more  than  similar  land  without  them. 

If,  therefore,  the  state  levy  a  tax  equal  to  what  the 
land  irrespective  of  improvement  would  bring,  it  will 
take  the  benefits  of  mere  ownership,  but  will  leave  the 
full  benefits  of  use  and  improvement,  which  the  prevail¬ 
ing  system  does  not  do.  And  since  the  holder,  who 
would  still  in  form  continue  to  be  the  owner,  could  at 
any  time  give  or  sell  both  possession  and  improvements, 
subject  to  future  assessment  by  the  state  on  the  value  of 
the  land  alone,  he  will  be  perfectly  free  to  retain  or  dis¬ 
pose  of  the  full  amount  of  property  that  the  exertion  of 
his  labor  or  the  investment  of  his  capital  has  attached  to 
or  stored  up  in  the  land. 

Thus,  what  we  propose  would  secure,  as  it  is  impossible 
in  any  other  way  to  secure,  what  you  properly  say  is  just 
and  right— “that  the  results  of  labor  should  belong  to 
him  who  has  labored.”  But  private  property  in  land— to 
allow  the  holder  without  adequate  payment  to  the  state 
to  take  for  himself  the  benefit  of  the  value  that  attaches 
to  land  with  social  growth  and  improvement — does  take 
the  results  of  labor  from  him  who  has  labored,  does  turn 
over  the  fruits  of  one  man’s  labor  to  be  enjoyed  by 
another.  For  labor,  as  the  active  factor,  is  the  producer 
of  all  wealth.  Mere  ownership  produces  nothing.  A 
man  might  own  a  world,  but  so  sure  is  the  decree  that 
“by  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  shalt  thou  eat  bread,”  that 
without  labor  he  could  not  get  a  meal  or  provide  himself 
a  garment.  Hence,  when  the  owners  of  land,  by  virtue 
of  their  ownership  and  without  laboring  themselves,  get 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


39 


the  products  of  labor  in  abundance,  these  things  must 
come  from  the  labor  of  others,  must  be  the  fruits  of 
others’  sweat,  taken  from  those  who  have  a  right  to  them 
and  enjoyed  by  those  who  have  no  right  to  them. 

The  only  utility  of  private  ownership  of  land  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  possession  is  the  evil  utility  of  giving  to 
the  owner  products  of  labor  he  does  not  earn.  For  until 
land  will  yield  to  its  owner  some  return  beyond  that  of 
the  labor  and  capital  he  expends  on  it— that  is  to  say, 
until  by  sale  or  rental  he  can  without  expenditure  of 
labor  obtain  from  it  products  of  labor,  ownership 
amounts  to  no  more  than  security  of  possession,  and  has 
no  value.  Its  importance  and  value  begin  only  when, 
either  in  the  present  or  prospectively,  it  will  yield  a 
revenue— that  is  to  say,  will  enable  the  owner  as  owner 
to  obtain  products  of  labor  without  exertion  on  his  part, 
and  thus  to  enjoy  the  results  of  others’  labor. 

What  largely  keeps  men  from  realizing  the  robbery 
involved  in  private  property  in  land  is  that  in  the  most 
striking  cases  the  robbery  is  not  of  individuals,  but  of 
the  community.  For,  as  I  have  before  explained,  it  is 
impossible  for  rent  in  the  economic  sense— that  value 
which  attaches  to  land  by  reason  of  social  growth  and 
improvement — to  go  to  the  user.  It  can  go  only  to  the 
owner  or  to  the  community.  Thus  those  who  pay  enor¬ 
mous  rents  for  the  use  of  land  in  such  centers  as  London 
or  New  York  are  not  individually  injured.  Individually 
they  get  a  return  for  what  they  pay,  and  must  feel  that 
they  have  no  better  right  to  the  use  of  such  peculiarly 
advantageous  localities  without  paying  for  it  than  have 
thousands  of  others.  And  so,  not  thinking  or  not  caring 
for  the  interests  of  the  community,  they  make  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  system. 

It  recently  came  to  light  in  New  York  that  a  man  hav¬ 
ing  no  title  whatever  had  been  for  years  collecting  rents 


40 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


on  a  piece  of  land  that  the  growth  of  the  city  had  made 
very  valuable.  Those  who  paid  these  rents  had  never 
stopped  to  ask  whether  he  had  any  right  to  them.  They 
felt  that  they  had  no  right  to  land  that  so  many  others 
would  like  to  have,  without  paying  for  it,  and  did  not 
think  of,  or  did  not  care  for,  the  rights  of  all. 

5.  That  private  property  in  land  has  the  support  of  the 
common  opinion  of  mankind,  and  has  conduced  to  peace  and 
tranquillity,  and  that  it  is  sanctioned  by  Divine  Law.  (11.) 

Even  were  it  true  that  the  common  opinion  of  man¬ 
kind  has  sanctioned  private  property  in  land,  this  would 
no  more  prove  its  justice  than  the  once  universal  practice 
of  the  known  world  would  have  proved  the  justice  of 
slavery. 

But  it  is  not  true.  Examination  will  show  that  wher¬ 
ever  we  can  trace  them  the  first  perceptions  of  mankind 
have  always  recognized  the  equality  of  right  to  land,  and 
that  when  individual  possession  became  necessary  to 
secure  the  right  of  ownership  in  things  produced  by 
labor  some  method  of  securing  equality,  sufficient  in  the 
existing  state  of  social  development,  was  adopted.  Thus, 
among  some  peoples,  land  used  for  cultivation  was  peri¬ 
odically  divided,  land  used  for  pasturage  and  wrood  being 
held  in  common.  Among  others,  every  family  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  hold  what  land  it  needed  for  a  dwelling  and 
for  cultivation,  but  the  moment  that  such  use  and  culti¬ 
vation  stopped  any  one  else  could  step  in  and  take  it  on 
like  tenure.  Of  the  same  nature  were  the  land  laws  of 
the  Mosaic  code.  The  land,  first  fairly  divided  among 
the  people,  was  made  inalienable  by  the  provision  of  the 
jubilee,  under  which,  if  sold,  it  reverted  every  fiftieth 
year  to  the  children  of  its  original  possessors. 

Private  property  in  land  as  we  know  it,  the  attaching 
to  land  of  the  same  right  of  ownership  that  justly 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


41 


attaches  to  the  products  of  labor,  has  never  grown  up 
anywhere  save  by  usurpation  or  force.  Like  slavery,  it 
is  the  result  of  war.  It  comes  to  us  of  the  modern  world 
from  your  ancestors,  the  Romans,  whose  civilization  it 
corrupted  and  whose  empire  it  destroyed. 

It  made  with  the  freer  spirit  of  the  northern  peoples 
the  combination  of  the  feudal  system,  in  which,  though 
subordination  was  substituted  for  equality,  there  was  still 
a  rough  recognition  of  the  principle  of  common  rights  in 
land.  A  fief  was  a  trust,  and  to  enjoyment  was  annexed 
some  obligation.  The  sovereign,  the  representative  of 
the  whole  people,  was  the  only  owner  of  land.  Of  him, 
immediately  or  mediately,  held  tenants,  whose  possession 
involved  duties  or  payments,  which,  though  rudely  and 
imperfectly,  embodied  the  idea  that  we  would  carry  out 
in  the  single  tax,  of  taking  land  values  for  public  uses. 
The  crown  lands  maintained  the  sovereign  and  the  civil 
list ;  the  church  lands  defrayed  the  cost  of  public  worship 
and  instruction,  of  the  relief  of  the  sick,  the  destitute  and 
the  wayworn  •  while  the  military  tenures  provided  for 
public  defense  and  bore  the  costs  of  war.  A  fourth  and 
very  large  portion  of  the  land  remained  in  common,  the 
people  of  the  neighborhood  being  free  to  pasture  it,  cut 
wood  on  it,  or  put  it  to  other  common  uses. 

In  this  partial  yet  substantial  recognition  of  common 
rights  to  land  is  to  be  found  the  reason  why,  in  a  time 
when  the  industrial  arts  were  rude,  wars  frequent,  and 
the  great  discoveries  and  inventions  of  our  time  unthought 
of,  the  condition  of  the  laborer  was  devoid  of  that  grind¬ 
ing  poverty  which  despite  our  marvelous  advances  now 
exists.  Speaking  of  England,  the  highest  authority  on 
such  subjects,  the  late  Professor  Thorold  Rogers,  declares 
that  in  the  thirteenth  century  there  was  no  class  so  poor, 
so  helpless,  so  pressed  and  degraded  as  are  millions  of 
Englishmen  in  our  boasted  nineteenth  century ;  and  that, 


42 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


save  in  times  of  actual  famine,  there  was  no  laborer  so 
poor  as  to  fear  that  his  wife  and  children  might  come  to 
want  even  were  he  taken  from  them.  Dark  and  rude  in 
many  respects  as  they  were,  these  were  the  times  when 
the  cathedrals  and  churches  and  religious  houses  whose 
ruins  yet  excite  our  admiration  were  built  ;  the  times 
when  England  had  no  national  debt,  no  poor  law,  no 
standing  army,  no  hereditary  paupers,  no  thousands  and 
thousands  of  human  beings  rising  in  the  morning  with¬ 
out  knowing  where  they  might  lay  their  heads  at  night. 

With  the  decay  of  the  feudal  system,  the  system  of 
private  property  in  land  that  had  destroyed  Rome  was 
extended.  As  to  England,  it  may  briefly  be  said  that  the 
crown  lands  were  for  the  most  part  given  away  to  favor¬ 
ites  ;  that  the  church  lands  were  parceled  among  his 
courtiers  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  in  Scotland  grasped  by 
the  nobles ;  that  the  military  dues  were  finally  remitted 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  taxation  on  consumption 
substituted;  and  that  by  a  process  beginning  with  the 
Tudors  and  extending  to  our  own  time  all  but  a  mere 
fraction  of  the  commons  were  inclosed  by  the  greater 
landowners;  while  the  same  private  ownership x of  land 
was  extended  over  Ireland  and  the  Scottish  Highlands, 
partly  by  the  sword  and  partly  by  bribery  of  the  chiefs. 
Even  the  military  dues,  had  they  been  commuted,  not 
remitted,  would  to-day  have  more  than  sufficed  to  pay  all 
public  expenses  without  one  penny  of  other  taxation. 

Of  the  New  World,  whose  institutions  but  continue 
those  of  Europe,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  to  the 
parceling  out  of  land  in  great  tracts  is  due  the  backward¬ 
ness  and  turbulence  of  Spanish  America;  that  to  the 
large  plantations  of  the  Southern  States  of  the  Union 
was  due  the  persistence  of  slavery  there,  and  that  the 
more  northern  settlements  showed  the  earlier  English 
feeling,  land  being  fairly  well  divided  and  the  attempts 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


43 


to  establish  manorial  estates  coming  to  little  or  nothing. 
In  this  lies  the  secret  of  the  more  vigorous  growth  of 
the  Northern  States.  But  the  idea  that  land  was  to  be 
treated  as  private  property  had  been  thoroughly  estab¬ 
lished  in  English  thought  before  the  colonial  period 
ended,  and  it  has  been  so  treated  by  the  United  States 
and  by  the  several  States.  And  though  land  was  at  first 
sold  cheaply,  and  then  given  to  actual  settlers,  it  was 
also  sold  in  large  quantities  to  speculators,  given  away 
in  great  tracts  for  railroads  and  other  purposes,  until 
now  the  public  domain  of  the  United  States,  which  a 
generation  ago  seemed  illimitable,  has  practically  gone. 
And  this,  as  the  experience  of  other  countries  shows,  is 
the  natural  result  in  a  growing  community  of  making 
land  private  property.  When  the  possession  of  land 
means  the  gain  of  unearned  wrealth,  the  strong  and 
unscrupulous  will  secure  it.  But  when,  as  we  propose, 
economic  rent,  the  “unearned  increment  of  wealth,”  is 
taken  by  the  state  for  the  use  of  the  community,  then 
land  will  pass  into  the  hands  of  users  and  remain  there, 
since  no  matter  how  great  its  value,  its  possession  will  be 
profitable  only  to  users. 

As  to  private  property  in  land  having  conduced  to  the 
peace  and  tranquillity  of  human  life,  it  is  not  necessary 
more  than  to  allude  to  the  notorious  fact  that  the  struggle 
for  land  has  been  the  prolific  source  of  wars  and  of  lawsuits, 
while  it  is  the  poverty  engendered  by  private  property  in 
land  that  makes  the  prison  and  the  workhouse  the  un¬ 
failing  attributes  of  what  we  call  Christian  civilization. 

Your  Holiness  intimates  that  the  Divine  Law  gives  its 
sanction  to  the  private  ownership  of  land,  quoting  from 
Deuteronomy,  “Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbors 
wife,  nor  his  house,  nor  his  field,  nor  his  man-servant, 
nor  his  maid-servant,  nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  any¬ 
thing  which  is  his.” 


44 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


If,  as  your  Holiness  conveys,  this  inclusion  of  the 
words,  “  nor  his  field/7  is  to  be  taken  as  sanctioning  pri¬ 
vate  property  in  land  as  it  exists  to-day,  then,  but  with 
far  greater  force,  must  the  words,  “  his  man-servant,  nor 
his  maid-servant/7  be  taken  to  sanction  chattel  slavery; 
for  it  is  evident  from  other  provisions  of  the  same  code 
that  these  terms  referred  both  to  bondsmen  for  a  term  of 
years  and  to  perpetual  slaves.  But  the  word  “  field 77 
involves  the  idea  of  use  and  improvement,  to  which  the 
right  of  possession  and  ownership  does  attach  without 
recognition  of  property  in  the  land  itself.  And  that  this 
reference  to  the  “  field 77  is  not  a  sanction  of  private  prop¬ 
erty  in  land  as  it  exists  to-day  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
the  Mosaic  code  expressly  denied  such  unciualified  owner¬ 
ship  in  land,  and  with  the  declaration,  “the  land  also 
shall  not  be  sold  forever,  because  it  is  mine,  and  you  are 
strangers  and  sojourners  with  me,77  provided  for  its  rever¬ 
sion  every  fiftieth  year;  thus,  in  a  way  adapted  to  the 
primitive  industrial  conditions  of  the  time,  securing  to 
all  of  the  chosen  people  a  foothold  in  the  soil. 

Nowhere  in  fact  throughout  the  Scriptures  can  the 
slightest  justification  be  found  for  the  attaching  to  land 
of  the  same  right  of  property  that  justly  attaches  to  the 
things  produced  by  labor.  Everywhere  is  it  treated  as 
the  free  bounty  of  God,  “the  land  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  givetli  thee.77 

6.  That  fathers  should  provide  for  their  children  and  that 
private  property  in  land  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  do  so. 

(14-17.) 

With  all  that  your  Holiness  has  to  say  of  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  the  family  relation  we  are  in  full  accord.  But 
how  the  obligation  of  the  father  to  the  child  can  justify 
private  property  in  land  we  cannot  see.  You  reason  that 
private  property  in  land  is  necessary  to  the  discharge  of 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


45 


the  duty  of  the  father,  and  is  therefore  requisite  and 
just,  because— 

It  is  a  most  sacred  law  of  nature  that  a  father  must  provide  food 
and  all  necessaries  for  those  whom  he  has  begotten ;  and,  similarly, 
nature  dictates  that  a  man’s  children,  who  carry  on,  as  it  were,  and 
continue  his  own  personality,  should  be  provided  by  him  with  all 
that  is  needful  to  enable  them  honorably  to  keep  themselves  from 
want  and  misery  in  the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal  life.  Now,  in 
no  other  way  can  a  father  effect  this  except  by  the  ownership  of 
profitable  property,  which  he  can  transmit  to  his  children  by  inheri¬ 
tance.  (14.) 

Thanks  to  Him  who  has  bound  the  generations  of  men 
together  by  a  provision  that  brings  the  tenderest  love  to 
greet  our  entrance  into  the  world  and  soothes  our  exit 
with  filial  piety,  it  is  both  the  duty  and  the  joy  of  the 
father  to  care  for  the  child  till  its  powers  mature,  and 
afterwards  in  the  natural  order  it  becomes  the  duty  and 
privilege  of  the  child  to  be  the  stay  of  the  parent.  This 
is  the  natural  reason  for  that  relation  of  marriage,  the 
groundwork  of  the  sweetest,  tenderest  and  purest  of 
human  joys,  which  the  Catholic  Church  has  guarded  with 
such  unremitting  vigilance. 

We  do,  for  a  few  years,  need  the  providence  of  our 
fathers  after  the  flesh.  But  how  small,  how  transient, 
how  narrow  is  this  need,  as  compared  with  our  constant 
need  for  the  providence  of  Him  in  whom  we  live,  move 
and  have  our  being — Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven ! 
It  is  to  him,  “  the  giver  of  every  good  and  perfect  gift/7 
and  not  to  our  fathers  after  the  flesh,  that  Christ  taught 
us  to  pray,  “  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread.77  And  how 
true  it  is  that  it  is  through  him  that  the  generations  of 
men  exist !  Let  the  mean  temperature  of  the  earth  rise 
or  fall  a  few  degrees,  an  amount  as  nothing  compared 
with  differences  produced  in  our  laboratories,  and  man¬ 
kind  would  disappear  as  ice  disappears  under  a  tropical 


46 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


sun,  would  fall  as  the  leaves  fall  at  the  touch  of  frost. 
Or,  let  for  two  or  three  seasons  the  earth  refuse  her  in¬ 
crease,  and  how  many  of  our  millions  would  remain  alive  ? 

The  duty  of  fathers  to  transmit  to  their  children  prof¬ 
itable  property  that  will  enable  them  to  keep  themselves 
from  want  and  misery  in  the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal 
life !  What  is  not  possible  cannot  be  a  duty.  And  how 
is  it  possible  for  fathers  to  do  that"?  Your  Holiness  has 
not  considered  how  mankind  really  lives  from  hand  to 
mouth,  getting  each  day  its  daily  bread;  how  little  one 
generation  does  or  can  leave  another.  It  is  doubtful  if 
the  wealth  of  the  civilized  world  all  told  amounts  to  any¬ 
thing  like  as  much  as  one  year’s  labor,  while  it  is  certain 
that  if  labor  were  to  stop  and  men  had  to  rely  on  exist¬ 
ing  accumulation,  it  would  be  only  a  few  days  ere  in  the 
richest  countries  pestilence  and  famine  would  stalk. 

The  profitable  property  your  Holiness  refers  to,  is 
private  property  in  land.  Now  profitable  land,  as  all 
economists  will  agree,  is  land  superior  to  the  land  that 
the  ordinary  man  can  get.  It  is  land  that  will  yield  an 
income  to  the  owner  as  owner,  and  therefore  that  will 
permit  the  owner  to  appropriate  the  products  of  labor 
without  doing  labor,  its  profitableness  to  the  individual 
involving  the  robbery  of  other  individuals.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  possible  only  for  some  fathers  to  leave  their  children 
profitable  land.  What  therefore  your  Holiness  practi¬ 
cally  declares  is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  fathers  to 
struggle  to  leave  their  children  what  only  the  few  pecu¬ 
liarly  strong,  lucky  or  unscrupulous  can  leave ;  and  that, 
a  something  that  involves  the  robbery  of  others— their 
deprivation  of  the  material  gifts  of  God. 

This  anti-Christian  doctrine  has  been  long  in  practice 
throughout  the  Christian  world.  What  are  its  results  ? 

Are  they  not  the  very  evils  set  forth  in  your  Encyc¬ 
lical?  Are  they  not,  so  far  from  enabling  men  to  keep 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


47 


themselves  from  want  and  misery  in  the  uncertainties  of 
this  mortal  life,  to  condemn  the  great  masses  of  men  to 
want  and  misery  that  the  natural  conditions  of  our 
mortal  life  do  not  entail  j  to  want  and  misery  deeper  and 
more  wide-spread  than  exist  among  heathen  savages? 
Under  the  regime  of  private  property  in  land  and  in  the 
richest  countries  not  five  per  cent,  of  fathers  are  able  at 
their  death  to  leave  anything  substantial  to  their  chil¬ 
dren,  and  probably  a  large  majority  do  not  leave  enough 
to  bury  them !  Some  few  children  are  left  by  their 
fathers  richer  than  it  is  good  for  them  to  be,  but  the  vast 
majority  not  only  are  left  nothing  by  their  fathers,  but 
by  the  system  that  makes  land  private  property  are 
deprived  of  the  bounty  of  their  Heavenly  Father;  are 
compelled  to  sue  others  for  permission  to  live  and  to 
wrork,  and  to  toil  all  their  lives  for  a  pittance  that  often 
does  not  enable  them  to  escape  starvation  and  pauperism. 

What  your  Holiness  is  actually,  though  of  course  inad¬ 
vertently,  urging,  is  that  earthly  fathers  should  assume 
the  functions  of  the  Heavenly  Father.  It  is  not  the 
business  of  one  generation  to  provide  the  succeeding 
generation  “with  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  them 
honorably  to  keep  themselves  from  want  and  misery.” 
That  is  God’s  business.  We  no  more  create  our  children 
than  we  create  our  fathers.  It  is  God  who  is  the  Creator 
of  each  succeeding  generation  as  fully  as  of  the  one  that 
preceded  it.  And,  to  recall  your  own  wTords  (7),  “Nature 
[God],  therefore,  owes  to  man  a  storehouse  that  shall 
never  fail,  the  daily  supply  of  his  daily  wants.  And  this 
he  finds  only  in  the  inexhaustible  fertility  of  the  earth.” 
What  you  are  now  assuming  is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
men  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  their  children  by  appro¬ 
priating  this  storehouse  and  depriving  other  men’s  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  unfailing  supply  that  God  has  provided 
for  all. 


48 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


The  duty  of  the  father  to  the  child— the  duty  possible 
to  all  fathers !  Is  it  not  so  to  conduct  himself,  so  to 
nurture  and  teach  it,  that  it  shall  come  to  manhood  with 
a  sound  body,  well-developed  mind,  habits  of  virtue,  piety 
and  industry,  and  in  a  state  of  society  that  shall  give  it 
and  all  others  free  access  to  the  bounty  of  God,  the 
providence  of  the  All-Father? 

In  doing  this  the  father  would  be  doing  more  to  secure 
his  children  from  want  and  misery  than  is  possible  now 
to  the  richest  of  fathers— as  much  more  as  the  provi¬ 
dence  of  God  surpasses  that  of  man.  For  the  justice  of 
God  laughs  at  the  efforts  of  men  to  circumvent  it;  and 
the  subtle  law  that  binds  humanity  together  poisons  the 
rich  in  the  sufferings  of  the  poor.  Even  the  few  who 
are  able  in  the  general  struggle  to  leave  their  children 
wealth  that  they  fondly  think  will  keep  them  from  want 

and  miserv'  in  the  uncertainties  of  this  mortal  life— do 

«/ 

they  succeed?  Does  experience  show  that  it  is  a  benefit 
to  a  child  to  place  him  above  his  fellows  and  enable  him 
to  think  God’s  law  of  labor  is  not  for  him  ?  Is  not  such 
wealth  oftener  a  curse  than  a  blessing,  and  does  not  its 
expectation  often  destroy  filial  love  and  bring  dissensions 
and  heartburnings  into  families?  And  how  far  and  how 
long  are  even  the  richest  and  strongest  able  to  exempt 
their  children  from  the  common  lot?  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  the  blood  of  the  masters  of  the  world 
flows  to-day  in  lazzaroni  and  that  the  descendants  of 
kings  and  princes  tenant  slums  and  workhouses. 

But  in  the  state  of  society  we  strive  for,  where  the 
monopoly  and  waste  of  God’s  bounty  would  be  done 
away  with  and  the  fruits  of  labor  would  go  to  the 
laborer,  it  would  be  within  the  ability  of  all  to  make 
more  than  a  comfortable  living  with  reasonable  labor. 
And  for  those  who  might  be  crippled  or  incapacitated,  or 
deprived  of  their  natural  protectors  and  breadwinners, 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


49 


the  most  ample  provision  could  be  made  out  of  that  great 
and  increasing  fund  with  which  God  in  his  law  of  rent 
has  provided  society— not  as  a  matter  of  niggardly  and 
degrading  alms,  but  as  a  matter  of  right,  as  the  assur¬ 
ance  which  in  a  Christian  state  society  owes  to  all  its 
members. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  duty  of  the  father,  the  obligation 
to  the  child,  instead  of  giving  any  support  to  private 
property  in  land,  utterly  condemns  it,  urging  us  by  the 
most  powerful  considerations  to  abolish  it  in  the  simple 
and  efficacious  way  of  the  single  tax. 

This  duty  of  the  father,  this  obligation  to  children,  is 
not  confined  to  those  who  have  actually  children  of  their 
own,  but  rests  on  all  of  us  who  have  come  to  the  powers 
and  responsibilities  of  manhood. 

For  did  not  Christ  set  a  little  child  in  the  midst  of  the 
disciples,  saying  to  them  that  the  angels  of  such  little 
ones  always  behold  the  face  of  his  Father;  saying  to 
them  that  it  were  better  for  a  man  to  hang  a  millstone 
about  his  neck  and  plunge  into  the  uttermost  depths  of 
the  sea  than  to  injure  such  a  little  one  ? 

And  what  to-day  is  the  result  of  private  property  in 
land  in  the  richest  of  so-called  Christian  countries?  Is 
it  not  that  young  people  fear  to  marry;  that  married 
people  fear  to  have  children ;  that  children  are  driven 
out  of  life  from  sheer  want  of  proper  nourishment  and 
care,  or  compelled  to  toil  when  they  ought  to  be  at  school 
or  at  play ;  that  great  numbers  of  those  who  attain  rnatu- 
ritv  enter  it  with  under-nourished  bodies,  overstrained 
nerves,  undeveloped  minds — under  conditions  that  fore¬ 
doom  them,  not  merely  to  suffering,  but  to  crime ;  that 
fit  them  in  advance  for  the  prison  and  the  brothel? 

If  your  Holiness  will  consider  these  things  we  are  con¬ 
fident  that  instead  of  defending  private  property  in  land 
you  will  condemn  it  with  anathema ! 


50 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


7.  That  the  private  ownership  of  land  stimulates  industry , 

increases  wealth ,  and  attaches  men  to  the  soil  and  to  their 

'  * 

country.  (51.) 

Tlie  idea,  as  expressed  by  Arthur  Young,  that  “the 
magic  of  property  turns  barren  sands  to  gold”  springs 
from  the  confusion  of  ownership  with  possession,  of 
which  I  have  before  spoken,  that  attributes  to  private 
property  in  land  what  is  due  to  security  of  the  products 
of  labor.  It  is  needless  for  me  again  to  point  out  that 
the  change  we  propose,  the  taxation  for  public  uses  of 
land  values,  or  economic  rent,  and  the  abolition  of  other 
taxes,  would  give  to  the  user  of  land  far  greater  security 
for  the  fruits  of  his  labor  than  the  present  system  and  far 
greater  permanence  of  possession.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
further  to  show  how  it  would  give  homes  to  those  wrho 
are  now  homeless  and  bind  men  to  their  country.  For 
under  it  every  one  who  wanted  a  piece  of  land  for  a 
home  or  for  productive  use  could  get  it  without  purchase 
price  and  hold  it  even  without  tax,  since  the  tax  we  pro¬ 
pose  would  not  fall  on  all  land,  nor  even  on  all  land  in 
use,  but  only  on  land  better  than  the  poorest  land  in  use, 
and  is  in  reality  not  a  tax  at  all,  but  merely  a  return  to 
the  state  for  the  use  of  a  valuable  privilege.  And  even 
those  who  from  circumstances  or  occupation  did  not 
wish  to  make  permanent  use  of  land  would  still  .have  an 
equal  interest  with  all  others  in  the  land  of  their  country 
and  in  the  general  prosperity. 

But  I  should  like  your  Holiness  to  consider  how  utterly 
unnatural  is  the  condition  of  the  masses  in  the  richest 
and  most  progressive  of  Christian  countries  ;  how  large 
bodies  of  them  live  in  habitations  in  which  a  rich  man 
would  not  ask  his  dog  to  dwell ;  how  the  great  majority 
have  no  homes'  from  which  they  are  not  liable  on  the 
slightest  misfortune  to  be  evicted ;  how  numbers  have 
no  homes  at  all,  but  must  seek  what  shelter  chance  or 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


51 


charity  offers.  I  should  like  to  ask  your  Holiness  to 
consider  how  the  great  majority  of  men  in  such  countries 
have  no  interest  whatever  in  what  they  are  taught  to  call 
their  native  land,  for  which  they  are  told  that  on  occa¬ 
sions  it  is  their  duty  to  fight  or  to  die.  What  right,  for 
instance,  have  the  majority  of  your  countrymen  in  the 
land  of  their  birth  f  Can  they  live  in  Italy  outside  of  a 
prison  or  a  poorhouse  except  as  they  buy  the  privilege 
from  some  of  the  exclusive  t)wners  of  Italy  ?  Cannot  an 
Englishman,  an  American,  an  Arab  or  a  Japanese  do  as 
much?  May  not  what  was  said  centuries  ago  by  Tibe¬ 
rius  Gracchus  be  said  to-day :  u  Men  of  Rome!  you  are 
called  the  lords  of  the  world ,  yet  have  no  right  to  a  square 
foot  of  its  soil!  The  wild  beasts  have  their  dens ,  but  the 
soldiers  of  Italy  have  only  water  and  air!  ” 

What  is  true  of  Italy  is  true  of  the  civilized  world— is 
becoming  increasingly  true.  It  is  the  inevitable  effect 
as  civilization  progresses  of  private  property  in  land. 

8.  That  the  right  to  possess  private  property  in  land  is 
from  nature ,  not  from  man ;  that  the  state  has  no  right  to 
abolish  it ,  and  that  to  tahe  the  value  of  landownership  in 
taxation  would  be  unjust  and  cruel  to  the  private  owner.  (51.) 

This,  like  much  else  that  your  Holiness  says,  is  masked 
in  the  use  of  the  indefinite  terms  “ private  property”  and 
u  private  owner  ” — a  want  of  precision  in  the  use  of  words 
that  has  doubtless  aided  in  the  confusion  of  your  own 
thought.  But  the  context  leaves  no  doubt  that  by  pri¬ 
vate  property  you  mean  private  property  in  land,  and  by 
private  owner,  the  private  owner  of  land. 

The  contention,  thus  made,  that  private  property  in 
land  is  from  nature,  not  from  man,  has  no  other  basis 
than  the  confounding  of  ownership  with  possession  and 
the  ascription  to  property  in  land  of  what  belongs  to  its 
contradictory,  property  in  the  proceeds  of  labor.  You 


52 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


do  not  attempt  to  show  for  it  any  other  basis,  nor  has 
any  one  else  ever  attempted  to  do  so.  That  private  prop¬ 
erty  in  the  products  of  labor  is  from  nature  is  clear,  for 
nature  gives  such  things  to  labor  and  to  labor  alone.  Of 
every  article  of  this  kind,  we  know  that  it  came  into 
being  as  nature’s  response  to  the  exertion  of  an  individ¬ 
ual  man  or  of  individual  men— given  by  nature  directly 
and  exclusively  to  him  or  to  them.  Thus  there  inheres 
in  such  things  a  right  of  private  property,  which  origi¬ 
nates  from  and  goes  back  to  the  source  of  ownership,  the 
maker  of  the  tiling.  This  right  is  anterior  to  the  state 
and  superior  to  its  enactments,  so  that,  as  we  hold,  it  is 
a  violation  of  natural  right  and  an  injustice  to  the  private 
owner  for  the  state  to  tax  the  processes  and  products  of 
labor.  They  do  not  belong  to  Cassar.  They  are  things 
that  God,  of  whom  nature  is  but  an  expression,  gives  to 
those  who  apply  for  them  in  the  way  he  has  appointed— 
by  labor. 

But  who  will  dare  trace  the  individual  ownership  of 
land  to  any  grant  from  the  Maker  of  land  ?  What  does 
nature  give  to  such  ownership  ?  how  does  she  in  any  way 
recognize  it?  Will  any  one  show  from  difference  of 
form  or  feature,  of  stature  or  complexion,  from  dissec¬ 
tion  of  their  bodies  or  analysis  of  their  powers  and  needs, 
that  one  man  was  intended  by  nature  to  own  land  and 
another  to  live  on  it  as  ljis  tenant  ?  That  which  derives 
its  existence  from  man  and  passes  away  like  him,  which 
is  indeed  but  the  evanescent  expression  of  his  labor,  man 
may  hold  and  transfer  as  the  exclusive  property  of  the 
individual ;  but  how  can  such  individual  ownership 
attach  to  land,  which  existed  before  man  was,  and  which 
continues  to  exist  while  the  generations  of  men  come  and 
go — the  unfailing  storehouse  that  the  Creator  gives  to 
man  for  “the  daily  supply  of  his  daily  wants”? 

Clearly,  the  private  ownership  of  land  is  from.,  the 
state,  not  from  nature.  Thus,  not  merely  can  no  objec- 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


53 


tion  be  made  on  the  score  of  morals  when  it  is  proposed 
that  the  state  shall  abolish  it  altogether,  but  insomuch 
as  it  is  a  violation  of  natural  right,  its  existence  involving 
a  gross  injustice  on  the  part  of  the  state,  an  u impious 
violation  of  the  benevolent  intention  of  the  Creator,”  it 
is  a  moral  duty  that  the  state  so  abolish  it. 

So  far  from  there  being  anything  unjust  in  taking  the 
full  value  of  landownership  for  the  use  of  the  community, 
the  real  injustice  is  in  leaving  it  in  private  hands— an 
injustice  that  amounts  to  robbery  and  murder. 

And  when  your  Holiness  shall  see  this  I  have  no  fear 
that  you  will  listen  for  one  moment  to  the  impudent  plea 
that  before  the  community  can  take  what  God  intended 
it  to  take— before  men  who  have  been  disinherited  of 
their  natural  rights  can  be  restored  to  them,  the  present 
owners  of  land  shall  first  be  compensated. 

For  not  only  will  you  see  that  the  single  tax  will  directly 
and  largely  benefit  small  landowners,  whose  interests  as 
laborers  and  capitalists  are  much  greater  than  their  inter¬ 
ests  as  landowners,  and  that  though  the  great  landowners 
— or  rather  the  propertied  class  in  general  among  whom 
the  profits  of  landownership  are  really  divided  through 
mortgages,  rent-charges,  etc.— would  relatively  lose,  they 
too  would  be  absolute  gainers  in  the  increased  prosperity 
and  improved  morals ;  but  more  quickly,  more  strongly, 
more  peremptorily  than  from  any  calculation  of  gains  or 
losses  would  your  duty  as  a  man,  your  faith  as  a  Chris¬ 
tian,  forbid  you  to  listen  for  one  moment  to  any  such 
paltering  with  right  and  wrong. 

Where  the  state  takes  some  land  for  public  uses  it  is 
only  just  that  those  whose  land  is  taken  should  be  com¬ 
pensated,  otherwise  some  landowners  would  be  treated 
more  harshly  than  others.  But  where,  by  a  measure 
affecting  all  alike,  rent  is  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of 
all,  there  can  be  no  claim  to  compensation.  Compensa¬ 
tion  in  such  case  would  be  a  continuance  of  the  same 


54 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


injustice  in  another  form— the  giving  to  landowners  in 
the  shape  of  interest  of  what  they  before  got  as  rent. 
Your  Holiness  knows  that  justice  and  injustice  are  not 
thus  to  be  juggled  with,  and  when  you  fully  realize  that 
land  is  really  the  storehouse  that  God  owes  to  all  his 
children,  you  will  no  more  listen  to  any  demand  for 
compensation  for  restoring  it  to  them  than  Moses  would 
have  listened  to  a  demand  that  Pharaoh  should  be  com¬ 
pensated  before  letting  the  children  of  Israel  go. 

Compensated  for  what  ?  For  giving  up  what  has  been 
unjustly  taken?  The  demand  of  landowners  for  com¬ 
pensation  is  not  that.  We  do  not  seek  to  spoil  the 
Egyptians.  We  do  not  ask  that  what  has  been  unjustly 
taken  from  laborers  shall  be  restored.  We  are  willing 
that  bygones  should  be  bygones  and  to  leave  dead 
wrongs  to  bury  their  dead.  We  propose  to  let  those 
who  by  the  past  appropriation  of  land  values  have  taken 
the  fruits  of  labor  to  retain  what  they  have  thus  got. 
We  merely  propose  that  for  the  future  such  robbery  of 
labor  shall  cease— that  for  the  future,  not  for  the  past, 
landholders  shall  pay  to  the  community  the  rent  that  to 
the  community  is  justly  due. 


III. 

I  have  said  enough  to  show  your  Holiness  the  injustice 
into  which  you  fall  in  classing  us,  who  in  seeking  virtu¬ 
ally  to  abolish  private  property  in  land  seek  more  fully 
to  secure  the  true  rights  of  property,  with  those  whom 
you  speak  of  as  socialists,  who  wish  to  make  all  property 
common.  But  you  also  do  injustice  to  the  socialists. 

There  are  many,  it  is  true,  who  feeling  bitterly  the 
monstrous  wrongs  of  the  present  distribution  of  wealth 
are  animated  only  by  a  blind  hatred  of  the  rich  and  a 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


55 


fierce  desire  to  destroy  existing  social  adjustments.  This 
class  is  indeed  only  less  dangerous  than  those  who  pro¬ 
claim  that  no  social  improvement  is  needed  or  is  possible. 
But  it  is  not  fair  to  confound  with  them  those  who, 
however  mistakenly,  propose  definite  schemes  of  remedy. 

The  socialists,  as  I  understand  them,  and  as  the  term 
has  come  to  apply  to  anything  like  a  definite  theory  and 
not  to  be  vaguely  and  improperly  used  to  include  all  who 
desire  social  improvement,  do  not,  as  you  imply,  seek  the 
abolition  of  all  private  property.  Those  who  do  this  are 
properly  called  communists.  What  the  socialists  seek  is 
the  state  assumption  of  capital  (in  which  they  vaguely 
and  erroneously  include  land),  or  more  properly  speak¬ 
ing,  of  large  capitals,  and  state  management  and  direction 
of  at  least  the  larger  operations  of  industry.  In  this 
way  they  hope  to  abolish  interest,  which  they  regard 
as  a  wrong  and  an  evil ;  to  do  away  with  the  gains  of 
exchangers,  speculators,  contractors  and  middlemen, 
which  they  regard  as  waste;  to  do  away  with  the  wage 
system  and  secure  general  cooperation ;  and  to  prevent 
competition,  which  they  deem  the  fundamental  cause  of 
the  impoverishment  of  labor.  The  more  moderate  of 
them,  without  going  so  far,  go  in  the  same  direction,  and 
seek  some  remedy  or  palliation  of  the  worst  forms  of 
poverty  by  government  regulation.  The  essential  char¬ 
acter  of  socialism  is  that  it  looks  to  the  extension  of  the 
functions  of  the  state  for  the  remedy  of  social  evils ; 
that  it  would  substitute  regulation  and  direction  for  com¬ 
petition  ;  and  intelligent  control  by  organized  society  for 
the  free  play  of  individual  desire  and  effort. 

Though  not  usually  classed  as  socialists,  both  the 
trades-unionists  and  the  protectionists  have  the  same 
essential  character.  The  trades-unionists  seek  the 
increase  of  wages,  the  reduction  of  working-hours  and 
the  general  improvement  in  the  condition  of  wage- 


56 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


workers,  by  organizing  them  into  guilds  or  associations 
which  shall  fix  the  rates  at  which  they  will  sell  their 
labor;  shall  deal  as  one  body  with  employers  in  case  of 
dispute;  shall  use  on  occasion  their  necessary  weapon, 
the  strike ;  and  shall  accumulate  funds  for  such  purposes 
and  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  members  when  on  a 
strike,  or  (sometimes)  when  out  of  employment.  The 
protectionists  seek  by  governmental  prohibitions  or  taxes 
on  imports  to  regulate  the  industry  and  control  the 
exchanges  of  each  country,  so  as,  they  imagine,  to  diver¬ 
sify  home  industries  and  prevent  the  competition  of 
people  of  other  countries. 

At  the  opposite  extreme  are  the  anarchists,  a  term 
which,  though  frequently  applied  to  mere  violent  destruc- 
tionists,  refers  also  to  those  who,  seeing  the  many  evils 
of  too  much  government,  regard  government  in  itself  as 
evil,  and  believe  that  in  the  absence  of  coercive  power 
the  mutual  interests  of  men  would  secure  voluntarily 
what  cooperation  is  needed. 

Differing  from  all  these  are  those  for  whom  I  would 
speak.  Believing  that  the  rights  of  true  property  are 
sacred,  we  would  regard  forcible  communism  as  robbery 
that  would  bring  destruction.  But  we  would  not  be  dis¬ 
posed  to  deny  that  voluntary  communism  might  be  the 
highest  possible  state  of  which  men  can  conceive.  Nor 
do  we  say  that  it  cannot  be  possible  for  mankind  to 
attain  it,  since  among  the  early  Christians  and  among 
the  religious  orders  of  the  Catholic  Church  we  have 
examples  of  communistic  societies  on  a  small  scale.  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  and  Fra  Angel¬ 
ico,  the  illustrious  orders  of  the  Carmelites  and  Francis¬ 
cans,  the  Jesuits,  whose  heroism  carried  the  cross  among 
the  most  savage  tribes  of  American  forests,  the  societies 
that  wherever  your  communion  is  known  have  deemed 
no  work  of  mercy  too  dangerous  or  too  repellent — were 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII.  57 

or  are  communists.  Knowing  these  things  we  cannot 
take  it  on  ourselves  to  say  that  a  social  condition  may 
not  be  possible  in  which  an  all-embracing  love  shall  have 
taken  the  place  of  all  other  motives.  But  we  see  that 
communism  is  only  possible  where  there  exists  a  general 
and  intense  religious  faith,  and  we  see  that  such  a  state 
can  be  reached  only  through  a  state  of  justice.  For 
before  a  man  can  be  a  saint  he  must  first  be  an  honest 
man. 

With  both  anarchists  and  socialists,  we,  who  for  want 
of  a  better  term  have  come  to  call  ourselves  single-tax 
men,  fundamentally  differ.  We  regard  them  as  erring 
in  opposite  directions — the  one  in  ignoring  the  social 
nature  of  man,  the  other  in  ignoring  his  individual 
nature.  While  we  see  that  man  is  primarily  an  individ¬ 
ual,  and  that  nothing  but  evil  has  come  or  can  come 
from  the  interference  by  the  state  with  things  that  belong 
to  individual  action,  we  also  see  that  he  is  a  social  being, 
or,  as  Aristotle  called  him,  a  political  animal,  and  that 
the  state  is  requisite  to  social  advance,  having  an  indis¬ 
pensable  place  in  the  natural  order.  Looking  on  the 
bodily  organism  as  the  analogue  of  the  social  organism, 
and  on  the  proper  functions  of  the  state  as  akin  to  those 
that  in  the  human  organism  are  discharged  by  the  con¬ 
scious  intelligence,  while  the  play  of  individual  impulse 
and  interest  performs  functions  akin  to  those  discharged 
in  the  bodily  organism  by  the  unconscious  instincts  and 
involuntary  motions,  the  anarchists  seem  to  us  like  men 
who  would  try  to  get  along  without  heads  and  the  social¬ 
ists  like  men  who  would  try  to  rule  the  wonderfully 
complex  and  delicate  internal  relations  of  their  frames 
by  conscious  will. 

The  philosophical  anarchists  of  whom  I  speak  are  few 
in  number,  and  of  little  practical  importance.  It  is  with 
socialism  in  its  various  phases  that  we  have  to  do  battle. 


58 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


With  the  socialists  we  have  some  points  of  agreement, 
for  we  recognize  fully  the  social  nature  of  man  and 
believe  that  all  monopolies  should  be  held  and  governed 
by  the  state.  In  these,  and  in  directions  where  the 
general  health,  knowledge,  comfort  and  convenience 
might  be  improved,  we,  too,  would  extend  the  functions 
of  the  state. 

But  it  seems  to  us  the  vice  of  socialism  in  all  its 
degrees  is  its  want  of  radicalism,  of  going  to  the  root. 
It  takes  its  theories  from  those  who  have  sought  to  jus¬ 
tify  the  impoverishment  of  the  masses,  and  its  advocates 
generally  teach  the  preposterous  and  degrading  doctrine 
that  slavery  was  the  first  condition  of  labor.  It  assumes 
that  the  tendency  of  wages  to  a  minimum  is  the  natural 
law,  and  seeks  to  abolish  wages ;  it  assumes  that  the 
natural  result  of  competition  is  to  grind  down  workers, 
and  seeks  to  abolish  competition  by  restrictions,  prohibi¬ 
tions  and  extensions  of  governing  power.  Thus  mistak¬ 
ing  effects  for  causes,  and  childishly  blaming  the  stone 
for  hitting  it,  it  wastes  strength  in  striving  for  remedies 
that  when  not  worse  are  futile.  Associated  though  it  is 
in  many  places  with  democratic  aspiration,  yet  its  essence 
is  the  same  delusion  to  which  the  children  of  Israel 
yielded  when  against  the  protest  of  their  prophet  they 
insisted  on  a*  king ;  the  delusion  that  has  everywhere 
corrupted  democracies  and  enthroned  tyrants  —  that 
power  over  the  people  can  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  j  that  there  may  be  devised  machinery  that  through 
human  agencies  will  secure  for  the  management  of  indi¬ 
vidual  affairs  more  wisdom  and  more  virtue  than  the 
people  themselves  possess. 

This  superficiality  and  this  tendency  may  be  seen  in  all 
the  phases  of  socialism. 

Take,  for  instance,  protectionism.  What  support  it 
has,  beyond  the  mere  selfish  desire  of  sellers  to  compel 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


59 


buyers  to  pay  them  more  than  their  goods  are  worth, 
springs  from  such  superficial  ideas  as  that  production, 
not  consumption,  is  the  end  of  effort;  that  money  is 
more  valuable  than  money’s-worth,  and  to  sell  more  prof¬ 
itable  than  to  buy ;  and  above  all  from  a  desire  to  limit 
competition,  springing  from  an  unanalyzing  recognition 
of  the  phenomena  that  necessarily  follow  when  men  who 
have  the  need  to  labor  are  deprived  by  monopoly  of 
access  to  the  natural  and  indispensable  element  of  all 
labor.  Its  methods  involve  the  idea  that  governments 
can  more  wisely  direct  the  expenditure  of  labor  and  the 
investment  of  capital  than  can  laborers  and  capitalists, 
and  that  the  men  who  control  governments  will  use  this 
power  for  the  general  good  and  not  in  their  own  inter¬ 
ests.  They  tend  to  multiply  officials,  restrict  liberty, 
invent  crimes.  They  promote  perjuiy,  fraud  and  corrup¬ 
tion.  And  they  would,  were  the  theory  carried  to  its 
logical  conclusion,  destroy  civilization  and  reduce  man¬ 
kind  to  savagery. 

Take  trades-unionism.  While  within  narrow  lines 
trades-unionism  promotes  the  idea  of  the  mutuality  of 
interests,  and  often  helps  to  raise  courage  and  further 
political  education,  and  while  it  has  enabled  limited 
bodies  of  working-men  to  improve  somewhat  their  con¬ 
dition,  and  gain,  as  it  were,  breathing-space,  yet  it  takes 
no  note  of  the  general  causes  that  determine  the  condi¬ 
tions  of  labor,  and  strives  for  the  elevation  of  only  a 
small  part  of  the  great  body  by  means  that  cannot  help 
the  rest.  Aiming  at  the  restriction  of  competition — the 
limitation  of  the  right  to  labor,  its  methods  are  like  those 
of  an  army,  which  even  in  a  righteous  cause  are  subver¬ 
sive  of  liberty  and  liable  to  abuse,  while  its  weapon,  the 
strike,  is  destructive  in  its  nature,  both  to  combatants 
and  non-combatants,  being  a  form  of  passive  war.  To 
apply  the  principle  of  trades-unions  to  all  industry,  as 


60 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


some  dream  of  doing,  would  be  to  enthrall  men  in  a  caste 
system. 

Or  take  even  such  moderate  measures  as  the  limitation 
of  working-hours  and  of  the  labor  of  women  and  chil¬ 
dren.  They  are  superficial  in  looking  no  further  than  to 
the  eagerness  of  men  and  women  and  little  children  to 
work  unduly,  and  in  proposing  forcibly  to  restrain  over¬ 
work  while  utterly  ignoring  its  cause — the  sting  of 
poverty  that  forces  human  beings  to  it.  And  the 
methods  by  which  these  restraints  must  be  enforced, 
multiply  officials,  interfere  with  personal  liberty,  tend  to 
corruption,  and  are  liable  to  abuse. 

As  for  thoroughgoing  socialism,  which  is  the  more  to 
be  honored  as  having  the  courage  of  its  convictions,  it 
would  carry  these  vices  to  full  expression.  Jumping  to 
conclusions  without  effort  to  discover  causes,  it  fails  to 
see  that  oppression  does  not  come  from  the  nature  of 
capital,  but  from  the  wrong  that  robs  labor  of  capital  by 
divorcing  it  from  land,  and  that  creates  a  fictitious  capi¬ 
tal  that  is  really  capitalized  monopoly.  It  fails  to  see 
that  it  would  be  impossible  for  capital  to  oppress  labor 
were  labor  free  to  the  natural  material  of  production ; 
that  the  wage  system  in  itself  springs  from  mutual  con¬ 
venience,  being  a  form  of  cooperation  in  which  one  of 
the  parties  prefers  a  certain  to  a  contingent  result ;  and 
that  what  it  calls  the  “iron  law  of  wages”  is  not  the 
natural  law  of  wages,  but  only  the  law  of  wages  in  that 
unnatural  condition  in  which  men  are  made  helpless  by 
being  deprived  of  the  materials  for  life  and  work.  It 
fails  to  see  that  what  it  mistakes  for  the  evils  of  competi¬ 
tion  are  really  the  evils  of  restricted  competition— are 
due  to  a  one-sided  competition  to  which  men  are  forced 
when  deprived  of  land.  While  its  methods,  the  organiza¬ 
tion  of  men  into  industrial  armies,  the  direction  and 
control  of  all  production  and  exchange  by  governmental 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


61 


or  semi-governmental  bureaus,  would,  if  carried  to  full 
expression,  mean  Egyptian  despotism. 

We  differ  from  the  socialists  in  our  diagnosis  of  the 
evil  and  we  differ  from  them  as  to  remedies.  We  have 
no  fear  of  capital,  regarding  it  as  the  natural  handmaiden 
of  labor;  we  look  on  interest  in  itself  as  natural  and 
just;  we  would  set  no  limit  to  accumulation,  nor  impose 
on  the  rich  any  burden  that  is  not  equally  placed  on  the 
poor;  we  see  no  evil  in  competition,  but  deem  unre¬ 
stricted  competition  to  be  as  necessary  to  the  health  of 
the  industrial  and  social  organism  as  the  free  circulation 
of  the  blood  is  to  the  health  of  the  bodily  organism— to 
be  the  agency  whereby  the  fullest  cooperation  is  to  be 
secured.  We  would  simply  take  for  the  community  what 
belongs  to  the  community,  the  value  that  attaches  to 
land  by  the  growth  of  the  community ;  leave  sacredly  to 
*  tliQ  individual  all  that  belongs  to  the  individual;  and, 
treating  necessary  monopolies  as  functions  of  the  state, 
abolish  all  restrictions  and  prohibitions  save  those  re¬ 
quired  for  public  health,  safety,  morals  and  convenience. 

But  the  fundamental  difference — the  difference  I  ask 
your  Holiness  specially  to  note,  is  in  this :  socialism  in 
all  its  phases  looks  on  the  evils  of  our  civilization  as 
springing  from  the  inadequacy  or  inharmony  of  natural 
relations,  which  must  be  artificially  organized  or 
improved.  In  its  idea  there  devolves  on  the  state  the 
necessity  of  intelligently  organizing  the  industrial  rela¬ 
tions  of  men ;  the  construction,  as  it  were,  of  a  great 
machine  whose  complicated  parts  shall  properly  work 
together  under  the  direction  of  human  intelligence.  This 
is  the  reason  why  socialism  tends  toward  atheism. 
Failing  to  see  the  order  and  symmetry  of  natural  law, 
it  fails  to  recognize  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  who  call  ourselves  single-tax 
men  (a  name  which  expresses  merely  our  practical  prop- 


G2 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


ositions)  see  in  the  social  and  industrial  relations  of 
men  not  a  machine  which  requires  construction,  but  an 
organism  which  needs  only  to  be  suffered  to  grow.  We 
see  in  the  natural  social  and  industrial  laws  such  har¬ 
mony  as  we  see  in  the  adjustments  of  the  human  body, 
and  that  as  far  transcends  the  power  of  man’s  intelli¬ 
gence  to  order  and  direct  as  it  is  beyond  man’s  intelli¬ 
gence  to  order  and  direct  the  vital  movements  of  his 
frame.  We  see  in  these  social  and  industrial  laws  so 
close  a  relation  to  the  moral  law  as  must  spring  from  the 
same  Authorship,  and  that  proves  the  moral  law  to  be 
the  sure  guide  of  man  where  his  intelligence  would 
wander  and  go  astray.  Thus,  to  us,  all  that  is  needed  to 
remedy  the  evils  of  our  time  is  to  do  justice  and  give 
freedom.  This  is  the  reason  why  our  beliefs  tend 
toward,  nay  are  indeed  the  only  beliefs  consistent  with 
a  firm  and  reverent  faith  in  God,  and  with  the  recogni-  * 
tion  of  his  law  as  the  supreme  law  which  men  must 
follow  if  they  would  secure  prosperity  and  avoid  destruc¬ 
tion.  This  is  the  reason  why  to  us  political  economy 
only  serves  to  show  the  depth  of  wisdom  in  the  simple 
truths  which  common  people  heard  gladly  from  the  lips 
of  Him  of  whom  it  was  said  with  wonder,  u  Is  not  this 
the  Carpenter  of  Nazareth  ?” 

And  it  is  because  that  in  what  we  propose— the  secur¬ 
ing  to  all  men  of  equal  natural  opportunities  for  the 
exercise  of  their  powers  and  the  removal  of  all  legal 
restriction  on  the  legitimate  exercise  of  those  powers— 
we  see  the  conformation  of  human  law  to  the  moral  law, 
that  we  hold  with  confidence  that  this  is  not  merely  the 
sufficient  remedy  for  all  the  evils  you  so  strikingly 
portray,  but  that  it  is  the  only  possible  remedy. 

Nor  is  there  any  other.  The  organization  of  man  is 
such,  his  relations  to  the  world  in  which  he  is  placed  are 
such— that  is  to  say,  the  immutable  laws  of  God  are  such. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


63 


that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  human  ingenuity  to  devise 
any  way  by  which  the  evils  born  of  the  injustice  that  robs 
men  of  their  birthright  can  be  removed  otherwise  than 
by  doing  justice,  by  opening  to  all  the  bounty  that  God 
has  provided  for  all. 

Since  man  can  live  only  on  land  and  from  land,  since 
land  is  the  reservoir  of  matter  and  force  from  which 
man’s  body  itself  is  taken,  and  on  which  he  must  draw 
for  all  that  he  can  produce,  does  it  not  irresistibly  follow 
that  to  give  the  land  in  ownership  to  some  men  and  to 
deny  to  others  all  right  to  it  is  to  divide  mankind  into 
the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  privileged  and  the  helpless? 
Does  it  not  follow  that  those  who  have  no  rights  to  the 
use  of  land  can  live  only  by  selling  their  power  to  labor 
to  those  who  own  the  land?  Does  it  not  follow  that 
what  the  socialists  call  “  the  iron  law  of  wages,”  what  the 
political  economists  term  “the  tendency  of  wages  to  a 
minimum,”  must  take  from  the  landless  masses— the 
mere  laborers,  who  of  themselves  have  no  power  to  use 
their  labor— all  the  benefits  of  any  possible  advance  or 
improvement  that  does  not  alter  this  unjust  division  of 
land  ?  For  having  no  power  to  employ  themselves,  they 
must,  either  as  labor-sellers  or  as  land-renters,  compete 
with  one  another  for  permission  to  labor.  This  competi¬ 
tion  with  one  another  of  men  shut  out  from  God’s  inex¬ 
haustible  storehouse  has  no  limit  but  starvation,  and 
must  ultimately  force  wages  to  their  lowest  point,  the 
point  at  which  life  can  just  be  maintained  and  reproduc¬ 
tion  carried  on. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  all  wages  must  fall  to  this  point, 
but  that  the  wages  of  that  necessarily  largest  stratum  of 
laborers  who  have  only  ordinary  knowledge,  skill  and 
aptitude  must  so  fall.  The  wages  of  special  classes,  who 
are  fenced  off  from  the  pressure  of  competition  by  pecu¬ 
liar  knowledge,  skill  or  other  causes,  may  remain  above 


64 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


that  ordinary  level.  Thus,  where  the  ability  to  read  and 
write  is  rare  its  possession  enables  a  man  to  obtain 
higher  wages  than  the  ordinary  laborer.  But  as  the 
diffusion  of  education  makes  the  ability  to  read  and 
write  general  this  advantage  is  lost.  So  when  a  vocation 
requires  special  training  or  skill,  or  is  made  difficult  of 
access  by  artificial  restrictions,  the  checking  of  competi¬ 
tion  tends  to  keep  wages  in  it  at  a  higher  level.  But  as 
the  progress  of  invention  dispenses  with  peculiar  skill, 
or  artificial  restrictions  are  broken  down,  these  higher 
wages  sink  to  the  ordinary  level.  And  so,  it  is  only  so 
long  as  they  are  special  that  such  qualities  as  industry, 
prudence  and  thrift  can  enable  the  ordinary  laborer  to 
maintain  a  condition  above  that  which  gives  a  mere  liv¬ 
ing.  Where  they  become  general,  the  law  of  competition 
must  reduce  the  earnings  or  savings  of  such  qualities  to 
the  general  level— which,  land  being  monopolized  and 
labor  helpless,  can  be  only  that  at  which  the  next  lowest 
point  is  the  cessation  of  life. 

Or,  to  state  the  same  thing  in  another  way:  Land 
being  necessary  to  life  and  labor,  its  owners  will  be  able, 
in  return  for  permission  to  use  it,  to  obtain  from  mere 
laborers  all  that  labor  can  produce,  save  enough  to  enable 
such  of  them  to  maintain  life  as  are  wanted  by  the  land- 
owners  and  their  dependents. 

Thus,  where  private  property  in  land  has  divided 
society  into  a  landowning  class  and  a  landless  class, 
there  is  no  possible  invention  or  improvement,  whether 
it  be  industrial,  social  or  moral,  which,  so  long  as  it  does 
not  affect  the  ownership  of  land,  can  prevent  poverty  or 
relieve  the  general  conditions  of  mere  laborers.  For 
whether  the  effect  of  any  invention  or  improvement  be 
to  increase  what  labor  can  produce  or  to  decrease  what 
is  required  to  support  the  laborer,  it  can,  so  soon  as  it 
becomes  general,  result  only  in  increasing  the  income  of 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


65 


the  owners  of  land,  without  at  all  benefiting  the  mere 
laborers.  In  no  event  can  those  possessed  of  the  mere 
ordinary  power  to  labor,  a  power  utterly  useless  without 
the  means  necessary  to  labor,  keep  more  of  their  earnings 
than  enough  to  enable  them  to  live. 

How  true  this  is  we  may  see  in  the  facts  of  to-day.  In 
our  own  time  invention  and  discovery  have  enormously 
increased  the  productive  power  of  labor,  and  at  the  same 
time  greatly  reduced  the  cost  of  many  things  necessary 
to  the  support  of  the  laborer.  Have  these  improvements 
anywhere  raised  the  earnings  of  the  mere  laborer  ? 
Have  not  their  benefits  mainly  gone  to  the  owners  of 
land— enormously  increased  land  values? 

I  say  mainly,  for  some  part  of  the  benefit  has  gone  to 
the  cost  of  monstrous  standing  armies  and  warlike  prep¬ 
arations  ;  to  the  payment  of  interest  on  great  public 
debts  ;  and,  largely  disguised  as  interest  on  fictitious 
capital,  to  the  owners  of  monopolies  other  than  that  of 
land.  But  improvements  that  would  do  away  with  these 
wastes  would  not  benefit  labor;  they  would  simply 
increase  the  profits  of  landowners.  Were  standing 
armies  and  all  their  incidents  abolished,  were  all  monop¬ 
olies  other  than  that  of  land  done  away  with,  were 
governments  to  become  models  of  economy,  were  the 
profits  of  speculators,  of  middlemen,  of  all  sorts  of 
exchangers  saved,  were  every  one  to  become  so  strictly 
honest  that  no  policemen,  no  courts,  no  prisons,  no  pre¬ 
cautions  against  dishonesty  would  be  needed — the  result 
would  not  differ  from  that  which  has  followed  the 
increase  of  productive  power. 

Nay,  would  not  these  very  blessings  bring  starvation 
to  many  of  those  who  now  manage  to  live?  Is  it  not 
true  that  if  there  were  proposed  to-day,  what  all  Chris¬ 
tian  men  ought  to  pray  for,  the  complete  disbandment  of 
all  the  armies  of  Europe,  the  greatest  fears  would  be 


66 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


aroused  for  the  consequences  of  throwing  on  the  labor- 
market  so  many  unemployed  laborers  ? 

The  explanation  of  this  and  of  similar  paradoxes  that 
in  our  time  perplex  on  every  side  may  be  easily  seen. 
The  effect  of  all  inventions  and  improvements  that 
increase  productive  power,  that  save  waste  and  econo¬ 
mize  effort,  is  to  lessen  the  labor  required  for  a  given 
result,  and  thus  to  save  labor,  so  that  we  speak  of  them 
as  labor-saving  inventions  or  improvements.  Now,  in  a 
natural  state  of  society  where  the  rights  of  all  to  the  use 
of  the  earth  are  acknowledged,  labor-saving  improve¬ 
ments  might  go  to  the  very  utmost  that  can  be  imagined 
without  lessening  the  demand  for  men,  since  in  such 
natural  conditions  the  demand  for  men  lies  in  their  own 
enjoyment  of  life  and  the  strong  instincts  that  the 
Creator  has  implanted  in  the  human  breast.  But  in 
that  unnatural  state  of  society  where  the  masses  of  men 
are  disinherited  of  all  but  the  power  to  labor  when 
opportunity  to  labor  is  given  them  by  others,  there  the 
demand  for  them  becomes  simply  the  demand  for  their 
services  by  those  who  hold  this  opportunity,  and  man 
himself  becomes  a  commodity.  Hence,  although  the 
natural  effect  of  labor-saving  improvement  is  to  increase 
wages,  yet  in  the  unnatural  condition  wrhich  private 
ownership  of  the  land  begets,  the  effect,  even  of  such 
moral  improvements  as  the  disbandment  of  armies  and 
the  saving  of  the  labor  that  vice  entails,  is,  by  lessening 
the  commercial  demand,  to  lower  wages  and  reduce  mere 
laborers  to  starvation  or  pauperism.  If  labor-saving 
inventions  and  improvements  could  be  carried  to  the 
very  abolition  of  the  necessity  for  labor,  what  would  be 
the  result?  Would  it  mot  be  that  landowners  could  then 
get  all  the  wealth  that  the  land  was  capable  of  produc¬ 
ing,  and  would  have  no  need  at  all  for  laborers,  who 
must  then  either  starve  or  live  as  pensioners  on  the 
bounty  of  the  landowners? 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


67 


Thus,  so  long  as  private  property  in  land  continues— 
so  long  as  some  men  are  treated  as  owners  of  the  earth 
and  other  men  can  live  on  it  only  by  their  sufferance— 
human  wisdom  can  devise  no  means  by  which  the  evils 
of  our  present  condition  may  be  avoided. 

Nor  yet  could  the  wisdom  of  God. 

By  the  light  of  that  right  reason  of  which  St.  Thomas 
speaks  we  may  see  that  even  he,  the  Almighty,  so  long  as  his 
laws  remain  what  they  are,  could  do  nothing  to  prevent 
poverty  and  starvation  "while  property  in  land  continues. 

How  could  he?  Should  he  infuse  new  vigor  into  the 
sunlight,  new  virtue  into  the  air,  new  fertility  into  the 
soil,  would  not  all  this  new  bounty  go  to  the  owners  of 
the  land,  and  work  not  benefit,  but  rather  injury,  to 
mere  laborers?  Should  he  open  the  minds  of  men  to  the 
possibilities  of  new  substances,  new  adjustments,  new 
powers,  could  this  do  any  more  to  relieve  poverty  than 
steam,  electricity  and  all  the  numberless  discoveries  and 
inventions  of  our  time  have  done?  Or,  if  he  were  to 
send  down  from  the  heavens  above  or  cause  to  gush  up 
from  the  subterranean  depths,  food,  clothing,  all  the 
things  that  satisfy  man’s  material  desires,  to  whom  under 
our  laws  would  all  these  belong  ?  So  far  from  benefiting 
man,  would  not  this  increase  and  extension  of  his  bounty 
prove  but  a  curse,  enabling  the  privileged  class  more 
riotously  to  roll  in  wealth,  and  bringing  the  disinherited 
class  to  more  wide-spread  starvation  or  pauperism  ? 


IV. 

Believing  that  the  social  question  is  at  bottom  a  reli¬ 
gious  question,  we  deem  it  of  happy  augury  to  the  world 
that  in  vour  Encyclical  the  most  influential  of  all  reli- 
gious  teachers  has  directed  attention  to  the  condition  of 

labor. 


68 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


But  while  we  appreciate  the  many  wholesome  truths 
you  utter,  while  we  feel,  as  all  must  feel,  that  you  are 
animated  by  a  desire  to  help  the  suffering  and  oppressed, 
and  to  put  an  end  to  any  idea  that  the  church  is  divorced 
from  the  aspiration  for  liberty  and  progress,  yet  it  is 
painfully  obvious  to  us  that  one  fatal  assumption  hides 
from  you  the  cause  of  the  evils  you  see,  and  makes  it 
impossible  for  you  to  propose  any  adequate  remedy. 
This  assumption  is,  that  private  property  in  land  is  of 
the  same  nature  and  has  the  same  sanctions  as  private 
property  in  things  produced  by  labor.  In  spite  of  its 
undeniable  truths  and  its  benevolent  spirit,  your  Encyc¬ 
lical  shows  you  to  be  involved  in  such  difficulties  as  a 
physician  called  to  examine  one  suffering  from  disease  of 
the  stomach  would  meet  should  he  begin  with  a  refusal 
to  consider  the  stomach. 

Prevented  by  this  assumption  from  seeing  the  true 
cause,  the  only  causes  you  find  it  possible  to  assign  for 
the  growth  of  misery  and  wretchedness  are  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  working-men’s  guilds  in  the  last  century,  the 
repudiation  in  public  institutions  and  laws  of  the  ancient 
religion,  rapacious  usury,  the  custom  of  working  by 
contract,  and  the  concentration  of  trade. 

Such  diagnosis  is  manifestly  inadequate  to  account  for 
evils  that  are  alike  felt  in  Catholic  countries,  in  Protestant 
countries,  in  countries  that  adhere  to  the  Greek  com¬ 
munion  and  in  countries  where  no  religion  is  professed 
by  the  state ;  that  are  alike  felt  in  old  countries  and  in 
new  countries;  where  industry  is  simple  and  where  it  is 
most  elaborate ;  and  amid  all  varieties  of  industrial  cus¬ 
toms  and  relations. 

But  the  real  cause  will  be  clear  if  you  will  consider 
that  since  labor  must  find  its  workshop  and  reservoir  in 
land,  the  labor  question  is  but  another  name  for  the  land 
question,  and  will  reexamine  your  assumption  that  pri¬ 
vate  property  in  land  is  necessary  and  right. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


69 


See  how  fully  adequate  is  the  cause  I  have  pointed  out. 
The  most  important  of  all  the  material  relations  of  man 
is  his  relation  to  the  planet  he  inhabits,  and  hence,  the 
u  impious  resistance  to  the  benevolent  intentions  of  his 
Creator,”  which,  as  Bishop  Nulty  says,  is  involved  in 
private  property  in  land,  must  produce  evils  wherever  it 
exists.  But  by  virtue  of  the  law,  “  unto  whom  much  is 
given,  from  him  much  is  required,”  the  very  progress  of 
civilization  makes  the  evils  produced  by  private  property 
in  land  more  wide-spread  and  intense. 

What  is  producing  throughout  the  civilized  world  that 
condition  of  things  you  rightly  describe  as  intolerable  is 
not  this  and  that  local  error  or  minor  mistake.  It  is 
nothing  less  than  the  progress  of  civilization  itself; 
nothing  less  than  the  intellectual  advance  and  the  mate¬ 
rial  growth  in  which  our  century  has  been  so  preeminent, 
acting  in  a  state  of  society  based  on  private  property  in 
land;  nothing  less  than  the  new  gifts  that  in  our  time 
God  has  been  showering  on  man,  but  which  are  being 
turned  into  scourges  by  man’s  “  impious  resistance  to  the 
benevolent  intentions  of  his  Creator.” 

The  discoveries  of  science,  the  gains  of  invention,  have 
given  to  us  in  this  wonderful  century  more  than  has  been 
given  to  men  in  any  time  before ;  and,  in  a  degree  so 
rapidly  accelerating  as  to  suggest  geometrical  progres¬ 
sion,  are  placing  in  our  hands  new  material  powers.  But 
with  the  benefit  comes  the  obligation.  In  a  civilization 
beginning  to  pulse  with  steam  and  electricity,  where  the 
sun  paints  pictures  and  the  phonograph  stores  speech,  it 
will  not  do  to  be  merely  as  just  as  were  our  fathers. 
Intellectual  advance  and  material  advance  require  corre¬ 
sponding  moral  advance.  Knowledge  and  power  are 
neither  good  nor  evil.  They  are  not  ends  but  means — 
evolving  forces  that  if  not  controlled  in  orderly  relations 
must  take  disorderly  and  destructive  forms.  The  deep¬ 
ening  pain,  the  increasing  perplexity,  the  growing  dis- 


70 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


content  for  which,  as  you  truly  say,  some  remedy  must  be 
found  and  quickly  found ,  mean  nothing  less  than  that 
forces  of  destruction  swifter  and  more  terrible  than 
those  that  have  shattered  every  preceding  civilization  are 
already  menacing  ours— that  if  it  does  not  quickly  rise 
to  a  higher  moral  level  j  if  it  does  not  become  in  deed  as 
in  word  a  Christian  civilization,  on  the  wall  of  its 
splendor  must  flame  the  doom  of  Babylon :  “  Thou  art 
weighed  in  the  balance  and  found  wanting !  ” 

One  false  assumption  prevents  you  from  seeing  the 
real  cause  and  true  significance  of  the  facts  that  have 
prompted  your  Encyclical.  And  it  fatally  fetters  you 
when  you  seek  a  remedy. 

You  state  that  you  approach  the  subject  with  confi¬ 
dence,  yet  in  .all  that  greater  part  of  the  Encyclical 
(19-67)  devoted  to  the  remedy,  while  there  is  an  abun¬ 
dance  of  moral  reflections  and  injunctions,  excellent  in 
themselves  but  dead  and  meaningless  as  you  apply  them, 
the  only  definite  practical  proposals  for  the  improvement 
of  the  condition  of  labor  are : 

1.  That  the  state  should  step  in  to  prevent  overwork, 
to  restrict  the  employment  of  women  and  children,  to 
secure  in  workshops  conditions  not  unfavorable  to  health 
and  morals,  and,  at  least  where  there  is  danger  of  in¬ 
sufficient  wages  provoking  strikes,  to  regulate  wages 
(39-40). 

2.  That  it  should  encourage  the  acquisition  of  property 
(in  land)  by  working-men  (50-51). 

3.  That  working-men’s  associations  should  be  formed 
(52-67). 

These  remedies  so  far  as  they  go  are  socialistic,  and 
though  the  Encyclical  is  not  without  recognition  of  the 
individual  character  of  man  and  of  the  priority  of  the 
individual  and  the  family  to  the  state,  yet  the  whole 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


71 


tendency  and  spirit  of  its  remedial  suggestions  lean 
unmistakably  to  socialism— extremely  moderate  socialism 
it  is  true;  socialism  hampered  and  emasculated  by  a 
supreme  respect  for  private  possessions;  yet  socialism 
still.  But,  although  you  frequently  use  the  ambiguous 
term  u  private  property  ”  when  the  context  shows  that  you 
have  in  mind  private  property  in  land,  the  one  thing  clear 
on  the  surface  and  becoming  clearer  still  with  examina¬ 
tion  is  that  you  insist  that  whatever  else  may  be  done,  the 
private  ownership  of  land  shall  be  left  untouched. 

I  have  already  referred  generally  to  the  defects  that 
attach  to  all  socialistic  remedies  for  the  evil  condition  of 
labor,  but  respect  for  your  Holiness  dictates  that  I 
should  speak  specifically,  even  though  briefly,  of  the 
remedies  proposed  or  suggested  by  you. 

Of  these,  the  widest  and  strongest  are  that  the  state 
should  restrict  the  hours  of  labor,  the  employment  of 
women  and  children,  the  unsanitary  conditions  of  work¬ 
shops,  etc.  Yet  how  little  may  in  this  way  be  accomplished. 

A  strong,  absolute  ruler  might  hope  by  such  regula¬ 
tions  to  alleviate  the  conditions  of  chattel  slaves.  But 
the  tendency  of  our  times  is  toward  democracy,  and 
democratic  states  are  necessarily  weaker  in  paternalism, 
while  in  the  industrial  slavery,  growing  out  of  private 
ownership  of  land,  that  prevails  in  Christendom  to-day, 
it  is  not  the  master  who  forces  the  slave  to  labor,  but  the 
slave  who  urges  the  master  to  let  him  labor.  Thus  the 
greatest  difficulty  in  enforcing  such  regulations  comes 
from  those  whom  they  are  intended  to  benefit.  It  is  not, 
for  instance,  the  masters  who  make  it  difficult  to  enforce 
restrictions  on  child  labor  in  factories,  but  the  mothers, 
who,  prompted  by  poverty,  misrepresent  the  ages  of 
their  children  even  to  the  masters,  and  teach  the  children 
to  misrepresent. 


72 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR, 


But  while  in  large  factories  and  mines  regulations  as 
to  hours,  ages,  etc.,  though  subject  to  evasion  and  offer¬ 
ing  opportunities  for  extortion  and  corruption,  may  be  to 
some  extent  enforced,  how  can  they  have  any  effect  in 
those  far  wider  branches  of  industry  where  the  laborer 
works  for  himself  or  for  small  employers? 

All  such  remedies  are  of  the  nature  of  the  remedy  for 
overcrowding  that  is  generally  prescribed  with  them— 
the  restriction  under  penalty  of  the  number  who  may 
occupy  a  room  and  the  demolition  of  unsanitary  build¬ 
ings.  Since  these  measures  have  no  tendency  to  increase 
house  accommodation  or  to  augment  ability  to  pay  for 
it,  the  overcrowding  that  is  forced  back  in  some  places 
goes  on  in  other  places  and  to  a  worse  degree.  All  such 
remedies  begin  at  the  wrong  end.  They  are  like  putting 
on  brake  and  bit  to  hold  in  quietness  horses  that  are 
being  lashed  into  frenzy ;  they  are  like  trying  to  stop  a 
locomotive  b}^  holding  its  wheels  instead  of  shutting  off 
steam ;  like  attempting  to  cure  smallpox  by  driving  back 
its  pustules.  Men  do  not  overwork  themselves  because 
they  like  it ;  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  the  mother’s  heart 
to  send  children  to  work  when  they  ought  to  be  at  play ; 
it  is  not  of  choice  that  laborers  will  work  under  danger¬ 
ous  and  unsanitary  conditions.  These  things,  like  over¬ 
crowding,  come  from  the  sting  of  poverty.  And  so  long 
as  the  poverty  of  which  they  are  the  expression  is  left 
untouched,  restrictions  such  as  you  indorse  can  have 
only  partial  and  evanescent  results.  The  cause  remain¬ 
ing,  repression  in  one  place  can  only  bring  out  its  effects 
in  other  places,  and  the  task  you  assign  to  the  state  is 
as  hopeless  as  to  ask  it  to  lower  the  level  of  the  ocean  by 
bailing  out  the  sea. 

Nor  can  the  state  cure  poverty  by  regulating  wages. 
It  is  as  much  beyond  the  power  of  the  state  to  regulate 
wages  as  it  is  to  regulate  the  rates  of  interest.  Usury 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


73 


laws  have  been  tried  again  and  again,  but  the  only  effect 
they  have  ever  had  has  been  to  increase  what  the  poorer 
borrowers  must  pay,  and  for  the  same  reasons  that  all 
attempts  to  lower  by  regulation  the  price  of  goods  have 
always  resulted  merely  in  increasing  them.  The  general 
rate  of  wages  is  fixed  by  the  ease  or  difficulty  with  which 
labor  can  obtain  access  to  land,  ranging  from  the  full 
earnings  of  labor,  where  land  is  free,  to  the  least  on 
which  laborers  can  live  and  reproduce,  where  land  is 
fully  monopolized.  Thus,  where  it  has  been  compara¬ 
tively  easy  for  laborers  to  get  land,  as  in  the  United 
States  and  in  Australasia,  wages  have  been  higher  than 
in  Europe  and  it  has  been  impossible  to  get  European 
laborers  to  wTork  there  for  wages  that  they  would  gladly 
accept  at  home ;  while  as  monopolization  goes  on  under 
the  influence  of  private  property  in  land,  wages  tend  to 
fall,  and  the  social  conditions  of  Europe  to  appear. 
Thus,  under  the  partial  yet  substantial  recognition  of 
common  rights  to  land,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  the 
many  attempts  of  the  British  Parliament  to  reduce  wages 
by  regulation  failed  utterly.  And  so,  wThen  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  private  property  in  land  had  done  its  work  in 
England,  all  attempts  of  Parliament  to  raise  wages 
proved  unavailing.  In  the  beginning  of  this  century  it 
was  even  attempted  to  increase  the  earnings  of  labor¬ 
ers  by  grants  in  aid  of  wages.  But  the  only  result 
was  to  lower  commensurately  what  wages  employers 
paid. 

The  state  could  maintain  wages  above  the  tendency 
of  the  market  (for  as  I  have  shown  labor  deprived  of 
land  becomes  a  commodity),  only  by  offering  employment 
to  all  who  wish  it;  or  by  lending  its  sanction  to  strikes 
and  supporting  them  with  its  funds.  Thus  it  is,  that  the 
thoroughgoing  socialists  who  want  the  state  to  take  all 
industry  into  its  hands  are  much  more  logical  than  those 


74 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


timid  socialists  who  propose  that  the  state  should  regulate 
private  industry— but  only  a  little. 

The  same  hopelessness  attends  your  suggestion  that 
working-people  should  be  encouraged  by  the  state  in 
obtaining  a  share  of  the  land.  It  is  evident  that  by  this 
you  mean  that,  as  is  now  being  attempted  in  Ireland,  the 
state  shall  buy  out  large  landowners  in  favor  of  small 
ones,  establishing  what  are  known  as  peasant  proprietors. 
Supposing  that  this  can  be  done  even  to  a  considerable 
extent,  what  will  be  accomplished  save  to  substitute  a 
larger  privileged  class  for  a  smaller  privileged  class? 
What  will  be  done  for  the  still  larger  class  that  must 
remain,  the  laborers  of  the  agricultural  districts,  the 
workmen  of  the  towns,  the  proletarians  of  the  cities  ?  Is 
it  not  true,  as  Professor  De  Laveleye  says,  that  in  such 
countries  as  Belgium,  where  peasant  proprietary  exists, 
the  tenants,  for  there  still  exist  tenants,  are  rack-rented 
with  a  mercilessness  unknown  in  Ireland  ?  Is  it  not  true 
that  in  such  countries  as  Belgium  the  condition  of  the 
mere  laborer  is  even  worse  than  it  is  in  Great  Britain, 
where  large  ownerships  obtain  ?  And  if  the  state 
attempts  to  buy  up  land  for  peasant  proprietors  will  not 
the  effect  be,  what  is  seen  to-day  in  Ireland,  to  increase 
the  market  value  of  land  and  thus  make  it  more  difficult 
for  those  not  so  favored,  and  for  those  who  will  come 
after,  to  get  land?  How,  moreover,  on  the  principle 
which  you  declare  (36),  that  “to  the  state  the  interests 
of  all  are  equal,  whether  high  or  low,”  will  you  justify 
state  aid  to  one  man  to  buy  a  bit  of  land  without  also 
insisting  on  state  aid  to  another  man  to  buy  a  donkey,  to 
another  to  buy  a  shop,  to  another  to  buy  the  tools  and 
materials  of  a  trade— state  aid  in  short  to  everybody  who 
may  be  able  to  make  good  use  of  it  or  thinks  that  he 
could?  And  are  you  not  thus  landed  in  communism  — 
not  the  communism  of  the  early  Christians  and  of  the 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


75 


religious  orders,  but  communism  that  uses  the  coercive 
power  of  the  state  to  take  rightful  property  by  force  from 
those  who  have,  to  give  to  those  who  have  not  ?  For  the 
state  has  no  purse  of  Fortunatus ;  the  state  cannot  repeat 
the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes ;  all  that  the  state 
can  give,  it  must  get  by  some  form  or  other  of  the  taxing 
power.  And  whether  it  gives  or  lends  money,  or  gives 
or  lends  credit,  it  cannot  give  to  those  who  have  not, 
without  taking  from  those  who  have. 

But  aside  from  all  this,  any  scheme  of  dividing  up 
land  while  maintaining  private  property  in  land  is  futile. 
Small  holdings  cannot  coexist  with  the  treatment  of 
land  as  private  property  where  civilization  is  materially 
advancing  and  wealth  augments.  We  may  see  this  in 
the  economic  tendencies  that  in  ancient  times  were  the 
main  cause  that  transformed  world-conquering  Italy 
from  a  land  of  small  farms  to  a  land  of  great  estates. 
We  may  see  it  in  the  fact  that  while  two  centuries  ago 
the  majority  of  English  farmers  were  owners  of  the  land 
they  tilled,  tenancy  has  been  for  a  long  time  the  all  but 
universal  condition  of  the  English  farmer.  And  now  the 
mighty  forces  of  steam  and  electricity  have  come  to  urge 
concentration.  It  is  in  the  United  States  that  we  may 
see  on  the  largest  scale  how  their  power  is  operating  to 
turn  a  nation  of  landowners  into  a  nation  of  tenants. 
The  principle  is  clear  and  irresistible.  Material  progress 
makes  land  more  valuable,  and  when  this  increasing 
value  is  left  to  private  owners  land  must  pass  from  the 
ownership  of  the  poor  into  the  ownership  of  the  rich, 
just  as  diamonds  so  pass  when  poor  men  find  them. 
What  the  British  government  is  attempting  in  Ireland  is 
to  build  snow-houses  in  the  Arabian  desert !  to  plant 
bananas  in  Labrador ! 

There  is  one  way,  and  only  one  way,  in  which  working- 
people  in  our  civilization  may  be  secured  a  share  in  the 
land  of  their  country,  and  that  is  the  way  that  we  pro- 


76 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


pose— the  taking  of  the  profits  of  landownership  for  the 
community. 

As  to  working-men’s  associations,  what  your  Holiness 
seems  to  contemplate  is  the  formation  and  encourage¬ 
ment  of  societies  akin  to  the  Catholic  sodalities,  and  to 
the  friendly  and  beneficial  societies,  like  the  Odd  Fellows, 
which  have  had  a  large  extension  in  English-speaking 
countries.  Such  associations  m^y  promote  fraternity, 
extend  social  intercourse  and  provide  assurance  in  case 
of  sickness  or  death,  but  if  they  go  no  further  they  are 
powerless  to  affect  wages  even  among  their  members. 
As  to  trades-unions  proper,  it  is  hard  to  define  your  posi¬ 
tion,  which  is,  perhaps,  best  stated  as  one  of  warm  appro¬ 
bation  provided  that  they  do  not  go  too  far.  For  while 
you  object  to  strikes  $  while  you  reprehend  societies  that 
“  do  their  best  to  get  into  their  hands  the  whole  field  of 
labor  and  to  force  working-men  either  to  join  them  or 
to  starve j  ”  while  you  discountenance  the  coercing  of 
employers  and  seem  to  think  that  arbitration  might  take 
the  place  of  strikes  5  yet  you  use  expressions  and  assert 
principles  that  are  all  that  the  trades-unionist  would  ask, 
not  merely  to  justify  the  strike  and  the  boycott,  but  even 
the  use  of  violence  where  only  violence  would  suffice. 
For  you  speak  of  the  insufficient  wages  of  workmen  as 
due  to  the  greed  of  rich  employers ;  you  assume  the  moral 
right  of  the  workman  to  obtain  employment  from  others 
at  wages  greater  than  those  others  are  willing  freely  to  give ; 
and  you  deny  the  right  of  any  one  to  work  for  such  wages 
as  he  pleases,  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  Mr.  Stead,  in  so 
widely  read  a  journal  as  the  Review  of  Reviews,  approvingly 
to  declare  that  you  regard  “  blacklegging,”  i.e.,  the  work¬ 
ing  for  less  than  union  wages,  as  a  crime. 

To  men  conscious  of  bitter  injustice,  to  men  steeped  in 
poverty  yet  mocked  by  flaunting  wealth,  such  words 
mean  more  than  I  can  think  you  realize. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


77 


When  fire  shall  be  cool  and  ice  be  warm,  when  armies 
shall  throw  away  lead  and  iron,  to  try  conclusions  by  the 
pelting  of  rose-leaves,  such  labor  associations  as  you  are 
thinking  of  may  be  possible.  But  not  till  then.  For 
labor  associations  can  do  nothing  to  raise  wages  but  by 
force.  It  may  be  force  applied  passively,  or  force  applied 
actively,  or  force  held  in  reserve,  but  it  must  be  force. 
They  must  coerce  or  hold  the  power  to  coerce  employers ; 
they  must  coerce  those  among  their  own  members  dis¬ 
posed  to  straggle;  they  must  do  their  best  to  get  into 
their  hands  the  whole  field  of  labor  they  seek  to  occupy 
and  to  force  other  working-men  either  to  join  them  or 
to  starve.  Those  who  tell  you  of  trades-unions  bent  on 
raising  wages  by  moral  suasion  alone  are  like  those  who 
would  tell  you  of  tigers  that  live  on  oranges. 

The  condition  of  the  masses  to-day  is  that  of  men 
pressed  together  in  a  hall  where  ingress  is  open  and  more 
are  constantly  coming,  but  where  the  doors  for  egress 
are  closed.  If  forbidden  to  relieve  the  general  pressure 
by  throwing  open  those  doors,  whose  bars  and  bolts  are 
private  property  in  land,  they  can  only  mitigate  the  pres¬ 
sure  on  themselves  by  forcing  back  others,  and  the 
weakest  must  be  driven  to  the  wall.  This  is  the  way  of 
labor-unions  and  trade-guilds.  Even  those  amiable 
societies  that  you  recommend  would  in  their  efforts  to 
find  employment  for  their  own  members  necessarily 
displace  others. 

For  even  the  philanthropy  which,  recognizing  the  evil 
of  trying  to  help  labor  by  alms,  seeks  to  help  men  to 
help  themselves  by  finding  them  work,  becomes  aggressive 
in  the  blind  and  bitter  struggle  that  private  property  in 
land  entails,  and  in  helping  one  set  of  men  injures  others. 
Thus,  to  minimize  the  bitter  complaints  of  taking  work 
from  others  and  lessening  the  wages  of  others  in  provid¬ 
ing  their  own  beneficiaries  with  work  and  wages,  benevo¬ 
lent  societies  are  forced  to  devices  akin  to  the  digging  of 


78 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


holes  and  filling  them  up  again.  Our  American  societies 
feel  this  difficulty,  General  Booth  encounters  it  in  Eng¬ 
land,  and  the  Catholic  societies  which  your  Holiness 
recommends  must  find  it,  when  they  are  formed. 

Your  Holiness  knows  of,  and  I  am  sure  honors,  the 
princely  generosity  of  Baron  Hirsch  toward  his  suffering 
coreligionists.  But,  as  I  write,  the  New  York  news¬ 
papers  contain  accounts  of  an  immense  meeting  held  in 
Cooper  Union,  in  this  city,  on  the  evening  of  Friday, 
September  4,  in  which  a  number  of  Hebrew  trades-unions 
protested  in  the  strongest  manner  against  the  loss  of 
work  and  reduction  of  wages  that  are  being  effected  by 
Baron  Hirsch’s  generosity  in  bringing  their  own  coun¬ 
trymen  here  and  teaching  them  to  work.  The  resolution 
unanimously  adopted  at  this  great  meeting  thus  con¬ 
cludes  : 

We  now  demand  of  Baron  Hirsch  himself  that  he  release  ns  from 
his  “  charity  ”  and  take  back  the  millions,  which,  instead  of  a  bless¬ 
ing,  have  proved  a  curse  and  a  source  of  misery. 

Nor  does  this  show  that  the  members  of  these  Hebrew 
labor-unions  —  who  are  themselves  immigrants  of  the 
same  class  as  those  Baron  Hirsch  is  striving  to  help,  for 
in  the  next  generation  they  lose  with  us  their  distinctive¬ 
ness— are  a  whit  less  generous  than  other  men. 

Labor  associations  of  the  nature  of  trade-guilds  or 
unions  are  necessarily  selfish •  by  the  law  of  their  being 
they  must  fight  for  their  own  hand,  regardless  of  who  is 
hurt;  they  ignore  and  must  ignore  the  teaching  of  Christ 
that  we  should  do  to  others  as  we  would  have  them  do  to 
us,  which  a  true  political  economy  shows  is  the  only  way 
to  the  full  emancipation  of  the  masses.  They  must  do 
their  best  to  starve  workmen  who  do  not  join  them,  they 
must  by  all  means  in  their  power  force  back  the  u  black¬ 
leg” — as  the  soldier  in  battle  must  shoot  down  his 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


79 


mother's  son  if  in  the  opposing  ranks.  And  who  is  the 
blackleg!  A  fellow-creature  seeking  work  — a  fellow- 
creature  in  all  probability  more  pressed  and  starved  than 
those  who  so  bitterly  denounce  him,  and  often  with  the 
hungry  pleading  faces  of  wdfe  and  child  behind  him. 

And,  in  so  far  as  they  succeed,  what  is  it  that  trade- 
guilds  and  unions  do  but  to  impose  more  restrictions  on 
natural  rights ;  to  create  u  trusts  "  in  labor ;  to  add  to 
privileged  classes  other  somewhat  privileged  classes ;  and 
to  press  the  weaker  closer  to  the  wall  ? 

I  speak  without  prejudice  against  trades-unions,  of 
which  for  years  I  was  an  active  member.  And  in  point¬ 
ing  out  to  your  Holiness  that  their  principle  is  selfish  and 
incapable  of  large  and  permanent  benefits,  and  that  their 
methods  violate  natural  rights  and  work  hardship  and 
injustice,  I  am  only  saying  to  you  what,  both  in  my 
books  and  bv  word  of  mouth,  I  have  said  over  and  over 
again  to  them.  Nor  is  what  I  say  capable  of  dispute. 
Intelligent  trades-unionists  know  it,  and  the  less  intelli¬ 
gent  vaguely  feel  it.  And  even  those  of  the  classes  of 
wealth  and  leisure  who,  as  if  to  head  off  the  demand  for 
natural  rights,  are  preaching  trades-unionism  to  working¬ 
men,  must  needs  admit  it. 

Your  Holiness  wfill  remember  the  great  London  dock 
strike  of  two  years  ago,  which,  with  that  of  other  influ¬ 
ential  men,  received  the  moral  support  of  that  Prince  of 
the  Church  whom  we  of  the  English  speech  hold  higher 
and  dearer  than  any  prelate  has  been  held  by  us  since 
the  blood  of  Thomas  a  Becket  stained  the  Canterbury 
altar. 

In  a  volume  called  “  The  Story  of  the  Dockers'  Strike," 
written  by  Messrs.  H.  Llewellyn  Smith  and  Vaughan 
Nash,  with  an  introduction  by  Sydney  Buxton,  M.P., 
which  advocates  trades-unionism  as  the  solution  of  the 
labor  question,  and  of  which  a  large  number  were  sent 


80 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


to  Australia  as  a  sort  of  official  recognition  of  the  gener¬ 
ous  aid  received  from  there  by  the  strikers,  I  find  in  the 
summing  up,  on  pages  164-165,  the  following : 

If  the  settlement  lasts,  work  at  the  docks  will  be  more  regular, 
better  paid,  and  carried  on  under  better  conditions  than  ever  before. 
All  this  will  be  an  unqualified  gain  to  those  who  get  the  benefit  from 
it.  But  another  result  will  undoubtedly  be  to  contract  the  field  of 
employ  ment  and  lessen  the  number  of  those  for  whom  work  can  be  found. 
The  lower-class  casual  will,  in  the  end,  find  his  position  more  pre¬ 
carious  than  ever  before,  in  proportion  to  the  increased  regularity 
of  work  which  the  “  fitter  ”  of  the  laborers  will  secure.  The  effect 
of  the  organization  of  dock  labor,  as  of  all  classes  of  labor,  will  be 
to  squeeze  out  the  residuum.  The  loafer,  the  cadger,  the  failure  in 
the  industrial  race— the  members  of  “Class  B”  of  Mr.  Charles 
Booth’s  hierarchy  of  social  classes — will  be  no  gainers  by  the  change, 
but  will  rather  find  another  door  closed  against  them,  and  this  in  many 
cases  the  last  door  to  employment. 

I  am  far  from  wishing  that  your  Holiness  should  join 
in  that  pharisaical  denunciation  of  trades-unions  common 
among  those  who,  while  quick  to  point  out  the  injustice 
of  trades-unions  in  denying  to  others  the  equal  right  to 
work,  are  themselves  supporters  of  that  more  primary 
injustice  that  denies  the  equal  right  to  the  standing-place 
and  natural  material  necessary  to  work.  What  I  wish 
to  point  out  is  that  trades-unionism,  while  it  may  be  a 
partial  palliative,  is  not  a  remedy;  that  it  has  not  that 
moral  character  which  could  alone  justify  one  in  the 
position  of  your  Holiness  in  urging  it  as  good  in  itself. 
Yet,  so  long  as  you  insist  on  private  property  in  land 
what  better  can  you  do  ? 


Y. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Encyclical  you  declare  that 
the  responsibility  of  the  apostolical  office  urges  your 
Holiness  to  treat  the  question  of  the  condition  of  labor 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


81 


“  expressly  and  at  length  in  order  that  there  may  be  no 
mistake  as  to  the  principles  which  truth  and  justice  dic¬ 
tate  for  its  settlement.’7  But,  blinded  by  one  false 
assumption,  you  do  not  see  even  fundamentals. 

You  assume  that  the  labor  question  is  a  question 
between  wage-workers  and  their  employers.  But  work¬ 
ing  for  wages  is  not  the  primary  or  exclusive  occupation 
of  labor.  Primarily  men  work  for  themselves  without 
the  intervention  of  an  employer.  *  And  the  primary 
source  of  wages  is  in  the  earnings  of  labor,  the  man  who 
works  for  himself  and  consumes  his  own  products  receiv¬ 
ing  his  wages  in  the  fruits  of  his  labor.  Are  not  fisher¬ 
men,  boatmen,  cab-drivers,  peddlers,  working  farmers— 
all,  in  short,  of  the  many  workers  who  get  their  wages 
directly  by  the  sale  of  their  services  or  products  without 
the  medium  of  an  employer,  as  much  laborers  as  those  who 
work  for  the  specific  wages  of  an  employer?  In  your 
consideration  of  remedies  you  do  not  seem  even  to  have 
thought  of  them.  Yet  in  reality  the  laborers  who  work 
for  themselves  are  the  first  to  be  considered,  since  what 
men  will  be  willing  to  accept  from  employers  depends 
manifestly  on  what  they  can  get  by  working  for  themselves. 

You  assume  that  all  employers  are  rich  men,  who 
might  raise  wages  much  higher  were  they  not  so  grasp¬ 
ing.  But  is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  great  majority  of 
employers  are  in  reality  as  much  pressed  by  competition 
as  their  workmen,  many  of  them  constantly  on  the  verge 
of  failure  ?  Such  employers  could  not  possibly  raise  the 
wages  they  pay,  however  they  might  wish  to,  unless  all 
others  were  compelled  to  do  so. 

You  assume  that  there  are  in  the  natural  order  two 
classes,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  and  that  laborers  naturally 
belong  to  the  poor. 

It  is  true  as  you  say  that  there  are  differences  in  capa¬ 
city,  in  diligence,  in  health  and  in  strength,  that  may 


82 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


produce  differences  in  fortune.  These,  however,  are  not 
the  differences  that  divide  men  into  rich  and  poor.  The 
natural  differences  in  powers  and  aptitudes  are  certainly 
not  greater  than  are  natural  differences  in  stature.  But 
while  it  is  only  by  selecting  giants  and  dwarfs  that  we 
can  find  men  twice  as  tall  as  others,  yet  in  the  difference 
between  rich  and  poor  that  exists  to-day  we  find  some 
men  richer  than  other  men  by  the  thousandfold  and  the 
millionfold. 

Nowhere  do  these  differences  between  wealth  and 
poverty  coincide  with  differences  in  individual  powers 
and  aptitudes.  The  real  difference  between  rich  and 
poor  is  the  difference  between  those  who  hold  the  toll- 
gates  and  those  who  pay  toll;  between  tribute-receivers 
and  tribute-yielders. 

In  what  way  does  nature  justify  such  a  difference? 
In  the  numberless  varieties  of  animated  nature  we  find 
some  species  that  are  evidently  intended  to  live  on  other 
species.  But  their  relations  are  always  marked  by 
unmistakable  differences  in  size,  shape  or  organs.  To 
man  has  been  given  dominion  over  all  the  other  living 
things  that  tenant  the  earth.  But  is  not  this  mastery 
indicated  even  in  externals,  so  that  no  one  can  fail  on 
sight  to  distinguish  between  a  man  and  one  of  the 
inferior  animals?  Our  American  apologists  for  slavery 
%  used  to  contend  that  the  black  skin  and  woolly  hair  of 
the  negro  indicated  the  intent  of  nature  that  the  black 
should  serve  the  white ;  but  the  difference  that  you 
assume  to  be  natural  is  between  men  of  the  same  race. 
What  difference  does  nature  show  between  such  men  as 
would  indicate  her  intent  that  one  should  live  idly  yet  be 
rich,  and  the  other  should  work  hard  yet  be  poor?  If  I 
could  bring  you  from  the  United  States  a  man  who  has 
$200,000,000,  and  one  who  is  glad  to  work  for  a  few 
dollars  a  week,  and  place  them  side  by  side  in  your  ante¬ 
chamber,  would  you  be  able  to  tell  which  was  which, 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


83 


even  were  you  to  call  in  the  most  skilled  anatomist? 
Is  it  not  clear  that  God  in  no  way  countenances  or  con¬ 
dones  the  division  of  rich  and  poor  that  exists  to-day,  or 
in  any  way  permits  it,  except  as  having  given  them  free 
will  he  permits  men  to  choose  either  good  or  evil,  and  to 
avoid  heaven  if  they  prefer  hell.  For  is  it  not  clear  that 
the  division  of  men  into  the  classes  rich  and  poor  has 
invariably  its  origin  in  force  and  fraud ;  invariably 
involves  violation  of  the  moral  law;  and  is  really  a 
division  into  those  who  get  the  profits  of  robbery  and 
those  who  are  robbed;  those  who  hold  in  exclusive  pos¬ 
session  what  God  made  for  all,  and  those  who  are  de¬ 
prived  of  his  bounty  ?  Did  not  Christ  in  all  his  utterances 
and  parables  show  that  the  gross  difference  between  rich 
and  poor  is  opposed  to  Goffs  law?  Would  he  have  con¬ 
demned  the  rich  so  strongly  as  he  did,  if  the  class  dis¬ 
tinction  between  rich  and  poor  did  not  involve  injustice 
—was  not  opposed  to  Goffs  intent? 

It  seems  to  us  that  your  Holiness  misses  its  real  signif¬ 
icance  in  intimating  that  Christ,  in  becoming  the  son  of 
a  carpenter  and  himself  working  as  a  carpenter,  showed 
merely  that  “there  is  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of  in  seek¬ 
ing  one’s  bread  by  labor.”  To  say  that  is  almost  like 
saying  that  by  not  robbing  people  he  showed  that  there 
is  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of  in  honesty.  If  you  will 
consider  how  true  in  any  large  view  is  the  classification 
of  all  men  into  working-men,  beggar-men  and  thieves, 
you  will  see  that  it  was  morally  impossible  that  Christ 
during  his  stay  on  earth  should  have  been  anything  else 
than  a  working-man,  since  he  who  came  to  fulfil  the  law 
must  by  deed  as  well  as  word  obey  God’s  law  of  labor. 

See  how  fully  and  how  beautifully  Christ’s  life  on 
earth  illustrated  this  law.  Entering  our  earthly  life  in 
the  weakness  of  infancy,  as  it  is  appointed  that  all  should 
enter  it,  he  lovingly  took  what  in  the  natural  order  is 
lovingly  rendered,  the  sustenance,  secured  by  labor,  that 


84 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


one  generation  owes  to  its  immediate  successors.  Arrived 
at  maturity,  he  earned  his  own  subsistence  by  that  com¬ 
mon  labor  in  which  the  majority  of  men  must  and  do 
earn  it.  Then  passing  to  a  higher— to  the  very  highest 
—sphere  of  labor,  he  earned  his  subsistence  by  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  moral  and  spiritual  truths,  receiving  its  material 
wages  in  the  love-offerings  of  grateful  hearers,  and  not 
refusing  the  costly  spikenard  with  which  Mary  anointed 
his  feet.  So,  when  he  chose  his  disciples,  he  did  not  go 
to  landowners  or  other  monopolists  who  live  on  the  labor 
of  others,  but  to  common  laboring-men.  And  when  he 
called  them  to  a  higher  sphere  of  labor  and  sent  them 
out  to  teach  moral  and  spiritual  truths,  he  told  them  to 
take,  without  condescension  on  the  one  hand  or  sense  of 
degradation  on  the  other,  the  loving  return  for  such 
labor,  saying  to  them  that  u  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
hire,”  thus  showing,  what  we  hold,  that  all  labor  does  not 
consist  in  what  is  called  manual  labor,  but  that  whoever 
helps  to  add  to  the  material,  intellectual,  moral  or  spirit¬ 
ual  fullness  of  life  is  also  a  laborer.* 


*  Nor  should  it  "be  forgotten  that  the  investigator,  the  philosopher, 
the  teacher,  the  artist,  the  poet,  the  priest,  though  not  engaged  in 
the  production  of  wealth,  are  not  only  engaged  in  the  production  of 
utilities  and  satisfactions  to  which  the  production  of  wealth  is  only 
a  means,  hut  by  acquiring  and  diffusing  knowledge,  stimulating 
mental  powers  and  elevating  the  moral  sense,  may  greatly  increase 
the  ability  to  produce  wealth.  For  man  does  not  live  by  bread 
alone.  .  .  .  He  who  by  any  exertion  of  mind  or  body  adds  to  the 
aggregate  of  enjoyable  wealth,  increases  the  sum  of  human  know¬ 
ledge,  or  gives  to  human  life  higher  elevation  or  greater  fullness — he 
is,  in  the  large  meaning  of  the  words,  a  “producer,”  a  “working¬ 
man,”  a  “laborer,”  and  is  honestly  earning  honest  wages.  But  he 
who  without  doing  aught  to  make  mankind  richer,  wiser,  better, 
happier,  lives  on  the  toil  of  others — he,  no  matter  by  what  name  of 
honor  he  may  be  called,  or  how  lustily  the  priests  of  Mammon  may 
swing  their  censers  before  him,  is  in  the  last  analysis  but  a  beggar- 
man  or  a  thief  .—Protection  or  Free  Trade,  pp.  74-75. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


85 


In  assuming  that  laborers,  even  ordinary  manual 
laborers,  are  naturally  poor,  you  ignore  the  fact  that 
labor  is  the  producer  of  wealth,  and  attribute  to  the 
natural  law  of  the  Creator  an  injustice  that  comes  from 
man’s  impious  violation  of  his  benevolent  intention.  In 
the  rudest  stage  of  the  arts  it  is  possible,  where  justice 
prevails,  for  all  well  men  to  earn  a  living.  With  the 
labor-saving  appliances  of  our  time,  it  should  be  possible 
for  all  to  earn  much  more.  And  so,  in  saying  that 
poverty  is  no  disgrace,  you  convey  an  unreasonable 
implication.  For  poverty  ought  to  be  a  disgrace,  since 
in  a  condition  of  social  justice,  it  would,  where  unsought 
from  religious  motives  or  unimposed  by  unavoidable 
misfortune,  imply  recklessness  or  laziness. 

The  sympathy  of  your  Holiness  seems  exclusively 
directed  to  the  poor,  the  workers.  Ought  this  to  be  so? 
Are  not  the  rich,  the  idlers,  to  be  pitied  also  ?  By  the 
word  of  the  gospel  it  is  the  rich  rather  than  the  poor 
who  call  for  pity,  for  the  presumption  is  that  they  will 
share  the  fate  of  Dives.  And  to  any  one  who  believes  in 
a  future  life  the  condition  of  him  who  wakes  to  find  his 
cherished  millions  left  behind  must  seem  pitiful.  But 
even  in  this  life,  how  really  pitiable  are  the  rich.  The 
evil  is  not  in  wealth  in  itself— in  its  command  over  mate¬ 
rial  things  ;  it  is  in  the  possession  of  wealth  while  others 
are  steeped  in  poverty ;  in  being  raised  above  touch  with 
the  life  of  humanity,  from  its  work  and  its  struggles,  its 
hopes  and  its  fears,  and  above  all,  from  the  love  that 
sweetens  life,  and  the  kindly  sympathies  and  generous 
acts  that  strengthen  faith  in  man  and  trust  in  God. 
Consider  how  the  rich  see  the  meaner  side  of  human 
nature ;  how  they  are  surrounded  by  flatterers  and 
sycophants;  how  they  find  ready  instruments  not  only 
to  gratify  vicious  impulses,  but  to  prompt  and  stimulate 


86 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


them;  how  they  must  constantly  be  on  guard  lest  they 
be  swindled;  how  often  they  must  suspect  an  ulterior 
motive  behind  kindly  deed  or  friendly  word ;  how  if  they 
try  to  be  generous  they  are  beset  by  shameless  beggars 
and  scheming  impostors ;  how  often  the  family  affections 
are  chilled  for  them,  and  their  deaths  anticipated  with 
the  ill-concealed  joy  of  expectant  possession.  The  worst 
evil  of  poverty  is  not  in  the  want  of  material  things,  but 
in  the  stunting  and  distortion  of  the  higher  qualities. 
So,  though  in  another  way,  the  possession  of  unearned 
wealth  likewise  stunts  and  distorts  what  is  noblest  in 
man. 

God’s  commands  cannot  be  evaded  with  impunity.  If 
it  be  God’s  command  that  men  shall  earn  their  bread  by 
labor,  the  idle  rich  must  suffer.  And  they  do.  See  the 
utter  vacancy  of  the  lives  of  those  who  live  for  pleasure ; 
see  the  loathsome  vices  bred  in  a  class  who  surrounded 
by  poverty  are  sated  with  wealth.  See  that  terrible 
punishment  of  ennui ,  of  which  the  poor  know  so  little 
that  they  cannot  understand  it;  see  the  pessimism  that 
grows  among  the  wealthy  classes— that  shuts  out  God, 
that  despises  men,  that  deems  existence  in  itself  an  evil, 
and  fearing  death  yet  longs  for  annihilation. 

When  Christ  told  the  rich  young  man  who  sought  him 
to  sell  all  he  had  and  to  give  it  to  the  poor,  he  was  not 
thinking  of  the  poor,  but  of  the  young  man.  And  I 
doubt  not  that  among  the  rich,  and  especially  among  the 
self-made  rich,  there  are  many  who  at  times  at  least  feel 
keenly  the  folly  of  their  riches  and  fear  for  the  dangers 
and  temptations  to  which  these  expose  their  children. 
But  the  strength  of  long  habit,  the  prompting  of  pride, 
the  excitement  of  making  and  holding  what  have  become 
for  them  the  counters  in  a  game  of  cards,  the  family 
expectations  that  have  assumed  the  character  of  rights, 
and  the  real  difficulty  they  find  in  making  any  good  use 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


87 


of  their  wealth,  bind  them  to  their  burden,  like  a  weary 
donkey  to  his  pack,  till  they  stumble  on  the  precipice 
that  bounds  this  life. 

Men  who  are  sure  of  getting  food  when  they  shall  need 
it  eat  only  what  appetite  dictates.  But  with  the  sparse 
tribes  who  exist  on  the  verge  of  the  habitable  globe  life 
is  either  a  famine  or  a  feast.  Enduring  hunger  for  days, 
the  fear  of  it  prompts  them  to  gorge  like  anacondas 
when  successful  in  their  quest  of  game.  And  so,  what 
gives  wealth  its  curse  is  what  drives  men  to  seek  it,  what 
makes  it  so  envied  and  admired— the  fear  of  want.  As 
the  unduly  rich  are  the  corollary  of  the  unduly  poor,  so 
is  the  soul-destroying  quality  of  riches  but  the  reflex  of 
the  want  that  embrutes  and  degrades.  The  real  evil  lies 
in  the  injustice  from  which  unnatural  possession  and 
unnatural  deprivation  both  spring. 

But  this  injustice  can  hardly  be  charged  on  individuals 
or  classes.  The  existence  of  private  property  in  land  is 
a  great  social  wrong  from  which  society  at  large  suffers, 
and  of  which  the  very  rich  and  the  very  poor  are  alike 
victims,  though  at  the  opposite  extremes.  Seeing  this,  it 
seems  to  us  like  a  violation  of  Christian  charity  to  speak 
of  the  rich  as  though  they  individually  were  responsible 
for  the  sufferings  of  the  poor.  Yet,  while  you  do  this, 
you  insist  that  the  cause  of  monstrous  wealth  and 
degrading  poverty  shall  not  be  touched.  Here  is  a  man 
with  a  disfiguring  and  dangerous  excrescence.  One 
physician  would  kindly,  gently,  but  firmly  remove  it. 
Another  insists  that  it  shall  not  be  removed,  but  at  the 
same  time  holds  up  the  poor  victim  to  hatred  and  ridi¬ 
cule.  Which  is  right  ? 

In  seeking  to  restore  all  men  to  their  equal  and  natural 
rights  we  do  not  seek  the  benefit  of  any  class,  but  of  all. 
For  we  both  know  b}^  faith  and  see  by  fact  that  injustice 
can  profit  no  one  and  that  justice  must  benefit  all. 


88 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


Nor  do  we  seek  any  “  futile  and  ridiculous  equality.” 
We  recognize,  with  you,  that  there  must  always  be  differ¬ 
ences  and  inequalities.  In  so  far  as  these  are  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  moral  law,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not 
violate  the  command,  “  Thou  shalt  not  steal,”  we  are  con¬ 
tent.  We  do  not  seek  to  better  God’s  work;  we  seek 
only  to  do  his  will.  The  equality  we  would  bring  about 
is  not  the  equality  of  fortune,  but  the  equality  of  natural 
opportunity;  the  equality  that  reason  and  religion  alike 
proclaim— the  equality  in  usufruct  of  all  his  children  to 
the  bounty  of  Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven. 

And  in  taking  for  the  uses  of  society  what  we  clearly 
see  is  the  great  fund  intended  for  society  in  the  divine 
order,  we  would  not  levy  the  slightest  tax  on  the  posses¬ 
sors  of  wealth,  no  matter  how  rich  they  might  be.  Not 
only  do  we  deem  such  taxes  a  violation  of  the  right  of 
property,  but  we  see  that  by  virtue  of  beautiful  adapta¬ 
tions  in  the  economic  laws  of  the  Creator,  it  is  impossible 
for  any  one  honestly  to  acquire  wealth,  without  at  the 
same  time  adding  to  the  wealth  of  the  world. 

To  persist  in  a  wrong,  to  refuse  to  undo  it,  is  always 
to  become  involved  in  other  wrongs.  Those  who  defend 
private  property  in  land,  and  thereby  deny  the  first  and 
most  important  of  all  human  rights,  the  equal  right  to 
the  material  substratum  of  life,  are  compelled  to  one  of 
two  courses.  Either  they  must,  as  do  those  whose  gospel 
is  “Devil  take  the  hindermost,”  deny  the  equal  right  to 
life,  and  by  some  theory  like  that  to  which  the  English 
clergyman  Malthus  has  given  his  name,  assert  that 
nature  (they  do  not  venture  to  say  God)  brings  into  the 
world  more  men  than  there  is  provision  for;  or,  they 
must,  as  do  the  socialists,  assert  as  rights  what  in  thern- 
>  selves  are  wrongs. 

Your  Holiness  in  the  Encyclical  gives  an  example  of 
this.  Denying  the  equality  of  right  to  the  material  basis 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


89 


of  life,  and  yet  conscious  that  there  is  a  right  to  live,  yon 
assert  the  right  of  laborers  to  employment  and  their 
right  to  receive  from  their  employers  a  certain  indefinite 
wage.  No  such  rights  exist.  No  one  has  a  right  to 
demand  employment  of  another,  or  to  demand  higher 
wages  than  the  other  is  willing  to  give,  or  in  any  way  to 
put  pressure  on  another  to  make  him  raise  such  wages 
against  his  will.  There  can  be  no  better  moral  justifica¬ 
tion  for  such  demands  on  employers  by  working-men 
than  there  would  be  for  employers  demanding  that 
working-men  shall  be  compelled  to  work  for  them  when 
they  do  not  want  to  and  to  accept  wages  lower  than  they 
are  willing  to  take.  Any  seeming  justification  springs 
from  a  prior  wrong,  the  denial  to  working-men  of  their 
natural  rights,  and  can  in  the  last  analysis  rest  only  on 
that  supreme  dictate  of  self-preservation  that  under 
extraordinary  circumstances  makes  pardonable  what  in 
itself  is  theft,  or  sacrilege  or  even  murder. 

A  fugitive  slave  with  the  bloodhounds  of  his  pursuers 
baying  at  his  heels  would  in  true  Christian  morals  be 
held  blameless  if  he  seized  the  first  horse  he  came  across, 
even  though  to  take  it  he  had  to  knock  down  the  rider. 
But  this  is  not  to  justify  horse-stealing  as  an  ordinary 
means  of  traveling. 

When  his  disciples  were  hungry  Christ  permitted  them 
to  pluck  corn  on  the  Sabbath  day.  But  he  never  denied 
the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  by  asserting  that  it  was  under 
ordinary  circumstances  a  proper  time  to  gather  corn. 

He  justified  David,  who  when  pressed  by  hunger  com¬ 
mitted  what  ordinarily  would  be  sacrilege,  by  taking 
from  the  temple  the  loaves  of  proposition.  But  in  this 
he  was  far  from  saying  that  the  robbing  of  temples  was 
a  proper  way  of  getting  a  living. 

In  the  Encyclical  however  you  commend  the  appli¬ 
cation  to  the  ordinary  relations  of  life,  under  normal 
conditions,  of  principles  that  in  ethics  are  only  to  be 


90 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


tolerated  under  extraordinary  conditions.  You  are  driven 
to  this  assertion  of  false  rights  by  your  denial  of  true 
rights.  The  natural  right  which  each  man  has  is  not 
that  of  demanding  employment  or  wages  from  another 
man ;  but  that  of  employing  himself —that  of  applying 
by  his  own  labor  to  the  inexhaustible  storehouse  which 
the  Creator  has  in  the  land  provided  for  all  men.  Were 
that  storehouse  open,  as  by  the  single  tax  we  would  open 
it,  the  natural  demand  for  labor  would  keep  pace  with 
the  supply,  the  man  who  sold  labor  and  the  man  who 
bought  it  would  become  free  exchangers  for  mutual 
advantage,  and  all  cause  for  dispute  between  workman 
and  employer  would  be  gone.  For  then,  all  being  free  to 
employ  themselves,  the  mere  opportunity  to  labor  would 
cease  to  seem  a  boon  $  and  since  no  one  would  work  for 
another  for  less,  all  things  considered,  than  he  could  earn 
by  working  for  himself,  wages  would  necessarily  rise  to 
their  full  value,  and  the  relations  of  workman  and  em¬ 
ployer  be  regulated  by  mutual  interest  and  convenience. 

This  is  the  only  way  in  which  they  can  be  satisfactorily 
regulated. 

Your  Holiness  seems  to  assume  that  there  is  some  just 
rate  of  wages  that  employers  ought  to  be  willing  to  pay 
and  that  laborers  should  be  content  to  receive,  and  to 
imagine  that  if  this  were  secured  there  would  be  an  end 
of  strife.  This  rate  you  evidently  think  of  as  that  which 
will  give  working-men  a  frugal  living,  and  perhaps 
enable  them  by  hard  work  and  strict  economy  to  lay  by 
a  little  something. 

But  how  can  a  just  rate  of  wages  be  fixed  without  the 
u higgling  of  the  market’7  any  more  than  the  just  price 
of  corn  or  pigs  or  ships  or  paintings  can  be  so  fixed? 
And  would  not  arbitrary  regulation  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other  check  that  interplay  that  most  effectively  pro¬ 
motes  the  economical  adjustment  of  productive  forces? 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


91 


Why  should  buyers  of  labor,  any  more  than  buyers  of 
commodities,  be  called  on  to  pay  higher  prices  than  in  a 
free  market  they  are  compelled  to  pay  ?  Why  should  the 
sellers  of  labor  be  content  with  anything  less  than  in  a 
free  market  they  can  obtain  ?  Why  should  working-men 
be  content  with  frugal  fare  when  the  world  is  so  rich? 
Why  should  they  be  satisfied  with  a  lifetime  of  toil  and 
stinting,  when  the  world  is  so  beautiful?  Why  should 
not  they  also  desire  to  gratify  the  higher  instincts,  the 
finer  tastes?  Why  should  they  be  forever  content  to 
travel  in  the  steerage  when  others  find  the  cabin  more 
enjoyable  ? 

Nor  will  they.  The  ferment  of  our  time  does  not  arise 
merely  from  the  fact  that  working-men  find  it  harder  to 
live  on  the  same  scale  of  comfort.  It  is  also  and  perhaps 
still  more  largely  due  to  the  increase  of  their  desires  with 
an  improved  scale  of  comfort.  This  increase  of  desire 
must  continue.  For  working-men  are  men.  And  man 
is  the  unsatisfied  animal. 

He  is  not  an  ox,  of  whom  it  may  be  said,  so  much 
grass,  so  much  grain,  so  much  water,  and  a  little  salt, 
and  he  will  be  content.  On  the  contrary,  the  more  he 
gets  the  more  he  craves.  When  he  has  enough  food 
then  he  wants  better  food.  When  he  gets  a  shelter  then 
he  wants  a  more  commodious  and  tasty  one.  When  his 
animal  needs  are  satisfied  then  mental  and  spiritual 
desires  arise. 

This  restless  discontent  is  of  the  nature  of  man— of 
that  nobler  nature  that  raises  him  above  the  animals  by 
so  immeasurable  a  gulf,  and  shows  him  to  be  indeed 
created  in  the  likeness  of  God.  It  is  not  to  be  quarreled 
with,  for  it  is  the  motor  of  all  progress.  It  is  this  that 
has  raised  St.  Peter’s  dome  and  on  dull,  dead  canvas 
made  the  angelic  face  of  the  Madonna  to  glow ;  it  is  this 
that  has  weighed  suns  and  analyzed  stars,  and  opened 


92 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


page  after  page  of  the  wonderful  works  of  creative 
intelligence ;  it  is  this  that  has  narrowed  the  Atlantic  to 
an  ocean  ferry  and  trained  the  lightning  to  carry  our 
messages  to  the  remotest  lands ;  it  is  this  that  is  opening 
to  ns  possibilities  beside  which  all  that  onr  modern 
civilization  has  as  yet  accomplished  seem  small.  Nor  can 
it  be  repressed  save  by  degrading  and  embrnting  men ; 
by  reducing  Europe  to  Asia. 

Hence,  short  of  what  wages  may  be  earned  when  all 
restrictions  on  labor  are  removed  and  access  to  natural 
opportunities  on  equal  terms  secured  to  all,  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  fix  any  rate  of  wages  that  will  be  deemed  just,  or 
any  rate  of  wages  that  can  prevent  working-men  striving 
to  get  more.  So  far  from  it  making  working-men  more 
contented  to  improve  their  condition  a  little,  it  is  certain 
to  make  them  more  discontented. 

Nor  are  you  asking  justice  when  yon  ask  employers  to 
pay  their  working-men  more  than  they  are  compelled  to 
pay— more  than  they  could  get  others  to  do  the  work  for. 
You  are  asking  charity.  For  the  surplus  that  the  rich 
employer  thus  gives  is  not  in  reality  wages,  it  is  essen¬ 
tially  alms. 

In  speaking  of  the  practical  measures  for  the  improve¬ 
ment  of  the  condition  of  labor  which  your  Holiness  sug¬ 
gests,  I  have  not  mentioned  what  you  place  much  stress 
upon— charity.  But  there  is  nothing  practical  in  such 
recommendations  as  a  cure  for  poverty,  nor  will  any  one  so 
consider  them.  If  it  were  possible  for  the  giving  of  alms  to 
abolish  poverty  there  would  be  no  poverty  in  Christendom. 

Charity  is  indeed  a  noble  and  beautiful  virtue,  grateful 
to  man  and  approved  by  God.  But  charity  must  be  built 
on  justice.  It  cannot  supersede  justice. 

What  is  wrong  with  the  condition  of  labor  through 
the  Christian  world  is  that  labor  is  robbed.  And  while 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


93 


you  justify  the  continuance  of  that  robbery  it  is  idle  to 
urge  charity.  To  do  so — to  commend  charity  as  a  sub¬ 
stitute  for  justice,  is  indeed  something  akin  in  essence  to 
those  heresies,  condemned  by  your  predecessors,  that 
taught  that  the  gospel  had  superseded  the  law,  and  that 
the  love  of  G-od  exempted  men  from  moral  obligations. 

All  that  charity  can  do  where  injustice  exists  is  here 
and  there  to  mollify  somewhat  the  effects  of  injustice. 
It  cannot  cure  them.  Nor  is  even  what  little  it  can  do  to 
mollify  the  effects  of  injustice  without  evil.  For  what 
may  be  called  the  superimposed,  and  in  this  sense,  sec¬ 
ondary  virtues,  work  evil  where  the  fundamental  or 
primary  virtues  are  absent.  Thus  sobriety  is  a  virtue 
and  diligence  is  a  virtue.  But  a  sober  and  diligent  thief 
is  all  the  more  dangerous.  Thus  patience  is  a  virtue. 
But  patience  under  -wrong  is  the  condoning  of  wrong. 
Thus  it  is  a  virtue  to  seek  knowledge  and  to  endeavor 
to  cultivate  the  mental  powers.  But  the  wicked  man 
becomes  more  capable  of  evil  by  reason  of  his  intelli¬ 
gence.  Devils  we  always  think  of  as  intelligent. 

And  thus  that  pseudo-charity  that  discards  and  denies 
justice  works  evil.  On  the  one  side,  it  demoralizes  its 
recipients,  outraging  that  human  dignity  which  as  you 
sajr  u  God  himself  treats  with  reverence/’  and  turning 
into  beggars  and  paupers  men  who  to  become  self-sup¬ 
porting,  self-respecting  citizens  need  only  the  restitution 
of  what  God  has  given  them.  On  the  other  side,  it  acts 
as  an  anodyne  to  the  consciences  of  those  who  are  living 
on  the  robbery  of  their  fellows,  and  fosters  that  moral 
delusion  and  spiritual  pride  that  Christ  doubtless  had  in 
mind  when  he  said  it  was  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  For  it  leads  men  steeped  in 
injustice,  and  using  their  money  and  their  influence  to 
bolster  up  injustice,  to  think  that  in  giving  alms  they 


94 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


are  doing  something  more  than  their  duty  toward  man 
and  deserve  to  be  very  well  thought  of  by  God,  and  in  a 
vague  way  to  attribute  to  their  own  goodness  what  really 
belongs  to  God’s  goodness.  For  consider:  Who  is  the 
All-Provider  ?  Who  is  it  that  as  you  say,  “  owes  to  man 
a  storehouse  that  shall  never  fail,”  and  which  “he  finds 
only  in  the  inexhaustible  fertility  of  the  earth.”  Is  it 
not  God?  And  when,  therefore,  men,  deprived  of  the 
bounty  of  their  God,  are  made  dependent  on  the  bounty 
of  their  fellow-creatures,  are  not  these  creatures,  as  it 
were,  put  in  the  place  of  God,  to  take  credit  to  them¬ 
selves  for  paying  obligations  that  you  yourself  say  God 
owes  ? 

But  worse  perhaps  than  all  else  is  the  way  in  which 
this  substituting  of  vague  injunctions  to  charity  for  the 
clear-cut  demands  of  justice  opens  an  easy  means  for  the 
professed  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion  of  all  branches 
and  communions  to  placate  Mammon  while  persuading 
themselves  that  they  are  serving  God.  Had  the  English 
clergy  not  subordinated  the  teaching  of  justice  to  the 
teaching  of  charity — to  go  no  further  in  illustrating  a 
principle  of  which  the  whole  history  of  Christendom 
from  Constantine’s  time  to  our  own  is  witness  —  the 
Tudor  tyranny  would  never  have  arisen,  and  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  the  church  been  averted;  had  the  clergy  of 
France  never  substituted  charity  for  justice,  the  mon¬ 
strous  iniquities  of  the  ancient  regime  would  never  have 
brought  the  horrors  of  the  Great  Revolution ;  and  in  my 
own  country  had  those  who  should  have  preached  justice 
not  satisfied  themselves  with  preaching  kindness,  chattel 
slavery  could  never  have  demanded  the  holocaust  of  our 
civil  war. 

No,  your  Holiness ;  as  faith  without  works  is  dead,  as 
men  cannot  give  to  God  his  due  while  denying  to  their 
fellows  the  rights  he  gave  them,  so  charity  unsupported 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


95 


by  justice  can  do  nothing  to  solve  the  problem  of  the 
existing  condition  of  labor.  Though  the  rich  were  to 
“bestow  all  their  goods  to  feed  the  poor  and  give  their 
bodies  to  be  burned,”  poverty  would  continue  while 
property  in  land  continues. 

Take  the  case  of  the  rich  man  to-day  who  is  honestly 
desirous  of  devoting  his  wealth  to  the  improvement  of 
the  condition  of  labor.  What  can  he  do  ? 

Bestow  his  wealth  on  those  who  need  it?  He  may 
help  some  who  deserve  it,  but  will  not  improve  general 
conditions.  And  against  the  good  he  may  do  will  be  the 
danger  of  doing  harm. 

Build  churches  ?  Under  the  shadow  of  churches 
poverty  festers  and  the  vice  that  is  born  of  it  breeds. 

•  Build  schools  and  colleges?  Save  as  it  may  lead  men 
to  see  the  iniquity  of  private  property  in  land,  increased 
education  can  effect  nothing  for  mere  laborers,  for  as 
education  is  diffused  the  wages  of  education  sink. 

Establish  hospitals  ?  Why,  already  it  seems  to  laborers 
that  there  are  too  many  seeking  work,  and  to  save  and 
prolong  life  is  to  add  to  the  pressure. 

Build  model  tenements?  Unless  he  cheapens  house 
accommodations  he  but  drives  further  the  class  he  would 
benefit,  and  as  he  cheapens  house  accommodations  he 
brings  more  to  seek  employment  and  cheapens  wages. 

Institute  laboratories,  scientific  schools,  workshops  for 
physical  experiments?  He  but  stimulates  invention  and 
discovery,  the  very  forces  that,  acting  on  a  society  based 
on  private  property  in  land,  are  crushing  labor  as  between 
the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone. 

Promote  emigration  from  places  where  wages  are  low 
to  places  where  they  are  somewhat  higher?  If  he  does, 
even  those  whom  he  at  first  helps  to  emigrate  will  soon 
turn  on  him  to  demand  that  such  emigration  shall  be 
stopped  as  reducing  their  wages. 


96 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


Give  away  what  land  he  may  have,  or  refuse  to  take 
rent  for  it,  or  let  it  at  lower  rents  than  the  market  price  ? 
He  will  simply  make  new  landowners  or  partial  land- 
owners;  he  may  make  some  individuals  the  richer,  but 
he  will  do  nothing  to  improve  the  general  condition  of 
labor. 

Or,  bethinking  himself  of  those  public-spirited  citizens 
of  classic  times  who  spent  great  sums  in  improving  their 
native  cities,  shall  he  try  to  beautify  the  city  of  his  birth 
or  adoption  ?  Let  him  widen  and  straighten  narrow  and 
crooked  streets,  let  him  build  parks  and  erect  fountains, 
let  him  open  tramways  and  bring  in  railroads,  or  in  any 
way  make  beautiful  and  attractive  his  chosen  city,  and 
what  will  be  the  result?  Must  it  not  be  that  those  who 
appropriate  God’s  bounty  will  take  his  also  ?  Will  it  not 
be  that  the  value  of  land  will  go  up,  and  that  the  net 
result  of  his  benefactions  will  be  an  increase  of  rents 
and  a  bounty  to  landowners?  Why,  even  the  mere 
announcement  that  he  is  going  to  do  such  things  will 
start  speculation  and  send  up  the  value  of  land  by  leaps 
and  bounds. 

What,  then,  can  the  rich  man  do  to  improve  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  labor  ? 

He  can  do  nothing  at  all  except  to  use  his  strength  for 
the  abolition  of  the  great  primary  wrong  that  robs  men 
of  their  birthright.  The  justice  of  God  laughs  at  the 
attempts  of  men  to  substitute  anything  else  for  it. 

• 

If  when  in  speaking  of  the  practical  measures  your 
Holiness  proposes,  I  did  not  note  the  moral  injunctions 
that  the  Encyclical  contains,  it  is  not  because  we  do  not 
think  morality  practical.  On  the  contrary  it  seems  to 
us  that  in  the  teachings  of  morality  is  to  be  found  the 
highest  practicality,  and  that  the  question,  What  is  wise? 
may  always  safely  be  subordinated  to  the  question,  What 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


97 


is  right  ?  But  your  Holiness  in  the  Encyclical  expressly 
deprives  the  moral  truths  you  state  of  all  real  bearing  on 
the  condition  of  labor,  just  as  the  American  people,  by 
their  legalization  of  chattel  slavery,  used  to  deprive  of  all 
practical  meaning  the  declaration  they  deem  their  funda¬ 
mental  charter,  and  were  accustomed  to  read  solemnly 
on  every  national  anniversary.  That  declaration  asserts 
that  “We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident— that  all 
men  are  created  equal  •  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights  5  that  among  these 
are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  But  what 
did  this  truth,  mean  on  the  lips  of  men  who  asserted  that 
one  man  was  the  rightful  property  of  another  man  who 
had  bought  him ;  who  asserted  that  the  slave  was  robbing 
the  master  in  running  away,  and  that  the  man  or  the 
woman  who  helped  the  fug'tive  to  escape,  or  even  gave 
him  a  cup  of  cold  water  in  Christ’s  name,  was  an  acces¬ 
sory  to  theft,  on  whose  head  the  penalties  of  the  state 
should  be  visited  ? 

Consider  the  moral  teachings  of  the  Encyclical : 

You  tell  us  that  God  owes  to  man  an  inexhaustible 
storehouse  which  he  finds  only  in  the  land.  Yet  you 
support  a  system  that  denies  to  the  great  majority  of 
men  all  right  of  recourse  to  this  storehouse. 

You  tell  us  that  the  necessity  of  labor  is  a  consequence 
of  original  sin.  Yet  you  support  a  system  that  exempts 
a  privileged  class  from  the  necessity  for  labor  and  enables 
them  to  shift  their  share  and  much  more  than  their  share 
of  labor  on  others. 

You  tell  us  that  God  has  not  created  us  for  the  perish¬ 
able  and  transitory  things  of  earth,  but  has  given  us  this 
world  as  a  place  of  exile  and  not  as  our  true  country. 
Yet  you  tell  us  that  some  of  the  exiles  have  the  exclusive 
right  of  ownership  in  this  place  of  common  exile,  so  that 
they  may  compel  their  fellow-exiles  to  pay  them  for 


98 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


sojourning  here,  and  that  this  exclusive  ownership  they 
may  transfer  to  other  exiles  yet  to  come,  with  the  same 
right  of  excluding  their  fellows. 

You  tell  us  that  virtue  is  the  common  inheritance  of 
all  ;  that  all  men  are  children  of  God  the  common  Father ; 
that  all  have  the  same  last  end  ;  that  all  are  redeemed  by 
Jesus  Christ;  that  the  blessings  of  nature  and  the  gifts 
of  grace  belong  in  common  to  all,  and  that  to  all  except 
the  unworthy  is  promised  the  inheritance  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  Heaven  !  Yet  in  all  this  and  through  all  this  you 
insist  as  a  moral  duty  on  the  maintenance  of  a  system 
that  makes  the  reservoir  of  all  God’s  material  bounties 
and  blessings  to  man  the  exclusive  property  of  a  few  of 
their  number — you  give  us  equal  rights  in  heaven,  but 
deny  us  equal  rights  on  earth  ! 

It  was  said  of  a  famous  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  made  just  before  the  civil  war,  in  a 
fugitive-slave  case,  that  “it  gave  the  law  to  the  North 
and  the  nigger  to  the  South.”  It  is  thus  that  your 
Encyclical  gives  the  gospel  to  laborers  and  the  earth  to 
the  landlords.  Is  it  really  to  be  wondered  at  that  there 
are  those  who  sneeringly  say,  u  The  priests  are  ready 
enough  to  give  the  poor  an  equal  share  in  all  that  is  out 
of  sight,  but  they  take  precious  good  care  that  the  rich 
shall  keep  a  tight  grip  on  all  that  is  within  sight  ”  ? 

Herein  is  the  reason  why  the  working  masses  all  over 
the  world  are  turning  away  from  organized  religion. 

And  why  should  they  not?  What  is  the  office  of  reli¬ 
gion  if  not  to  point  out  the  principles  that  ought  to 
govern  the  conduct  of  men  toward  each  other ;  to  furnish 
a  clear,  decisive  rule  of  right  which  shall  guide  men  in 
all  the  relations  of  life— in  the  workshop,  in  the  mart,  in 
the  forum  and  in  the  senate,  as  well  as  in  the  church ;  to 
supply,  as  it  were,  a  compass  by  which  amid  the  blasts  of 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


99 


passion,  the  aberrations  of  greed  and  the  delusions  of  a 
short-sighted  expediency  men  may  safely  steer?  What 
is  the  use  of  a  religion  that  stands  palsied  and  paltering 
in  the  face  of  the  most  momentous  problems  ?  What  is 
the  use  of  a  religion  that  whatever  it  may  promise  for 
the  next  world  can  do  nothing  to  prevent  injustice  in 
this  ?  Early  Christianity  was  not  such  a  religion,  else  it 
would  never  have  encountered  the  Roman  persecutions; 
else  it  would  never  have  swept  the  Roman  world.  The 
skeptical  masters  of  Rome,  tolerant  of  all  gods,  careless 
of  what  they  deemed  vulgar  superstitions,  were  keenly 
sensitive  to  a  doctrine  based  on  equal  rights ;  they  feared 
instinctively  a  religion  that  inspired  slave  and  proletarian 
with  a  new  hope ;  that  took  for  its  central  figure  a  cruci¬ 
fied  carpenter ;  that  taught  the  equal  Fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  ^equal  brotherhood  of  men ;  that  looked  for  the 
speedy  reign  of  justice,  and  that  prayed,  11  Thy  Kingdom 
come  on  Earth  !  ” 

To-day,  the  same  perceptions,  the  same  aspirations, 
exist  among  the  masses.  Man  is,  as  he  has  been  called, 
a  religious  animal,  and  can  never  quite  rid  himself  of  the 
feeling  that  there  is  some  moral .  government  of  the 
world,  some  eternal  distinction  between  wrong  and 
right ;  can  never  quite  abandon  the  yearning  for  a  reign 
of  righteousness.  And  to-day,  men  who,  as  they  think, 
have  cast  off  all  belief  in  religion,  will  tell  you,  even 
though  they  know  not  what  it  is,  that  with  regard  to  the 
condition  of  labor  something  is  wrong !  If  theology  be,  as 
St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  held  it,  the  sum  and  focus  of  the 
sciences,  is  it  not  the  business  of  religion  to  say  clearly 
and  fearlessly  what  that  wrong  is?  It  was  by  a  deep 
impulse  that  of  old  when  threatened  and  perplexed  by 
general  disaster  men  came  to  the  oracles  to  ask,  In  what 
have  we  offended  the  gods?  To-day,  menaced  by  grow¬ 
ing  evils  that  threaten  the  very  existence  of  society,  men, 


100 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


conscious  that  something  is  wrong ,  are  putting  the  same 
question  to  the  ministers  of  religion.  What  is  the 
answer  they  get?  Alas,  with  few  exceptions,  it  is  as 
vague,  as  inadequate,  as  the  answers  that  used  to  come 
from  heathen  oracles. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  masses  of  men  are  losing 
faith  ? 

Let  me  again  state  the  case  that  your  Encyclical  presents : 

What  is  that  condition  of  labor  which  as  you  truly  say 
is  u  the  question  of  the  hour/7  and  “  fills  every  mind  with 
painful  apprehension77?  Reduced  to  its  lowest  expres¬ 
sion  it  is  the  poverty  of  men  willing  to  work.  And  what 
is  the  lowest  expression  of  this  phrase?  It  is  that  they 
lack  bread— for  in  that  one  word  we  most  concisely  and 
strongly  express  all  the  manifold  material  satisfactions 
needed  by  humanity,  the  absence  of  which  constitutes 
poverty. 

Now  what  is  the  prayer  of  Christendom— the  universal 
prayer;  the  prayer  that  goes  up  daily  and  hourly  wher¬ 
ever  the  name  of  Christ  is  honored;  that  ascends  from 
your  Holiness  at  the  high  altar  of  St.  Peter’s,  and  that  is 
repeated  by  the  youngest  child  that  the  poorest  Christian 
mother  lias  taught  to  lisp  a  request  to  her  Father  in 
Heaven  ?  It  is,  “  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread  ! 77 

Yet  where  this  prayer  goes  up,  daily  and  hourly,  men 
lack  bread.  Is  it  not  the  business  of  religion  to  say  why  ? 
If  it  cannot  do  so,  shall  not  scoffers  mock  its  ministers 
as  Elias  mocked  the  prophets  of  Baal,  saying,  “  Cry  with 
a  louder  voice,  for  he  is  a  god ;  and  perhaps  he  is  talking, 
or  is  in  an  inn,  or  on  a  journey,  or  perhaps  he  is  asleep, 
and  must  be  awaked ! 77  What  answer  can  those  min¬ 
isters  give?  Either  there  is  no  God,  or  he  is  asleep,  or 
else  he  does  give  men  their  daily  bread,  and  it  is  in  some 
way  intercepted. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


101 


Here  is  the  answer,  the  only  true  answer :  If  men  lack 
bread  it  is  not  that  God  has  not  done  his  part  in  pro¬ 
viding  it.  If  men  willing  to  labor  are  cursed  with  pov¬ 
erty,  it  is  not  that  the  storehouse  that  God  owes  men  has 
failed  j  that  the  daily  supply  he  has  promised  for  the 
daily  wants  of  his  children  is  not  here  in  abundance.  It 
is,  that  impiously  violating  the  benevolent  intentions  of 
their  Creator,  men  have  made  land  private  property,  and 
thus  given  into  the  exclusive  ownership  of  the  few  the 
provision  that  a  bountiful  Father  has  made  for  all. 

Any  other  answer  than  that,  no  matter  how  it  may  be 
shrouded  in  the  mere  forms  of  religion,  is  practically  an 
atheistical  answer. 


I  have  written  this  letter  not  alone  for  your  Holiness, 
but  for  all  whom  I  may  hope  it  to  reach.  But  in  sending 
it  to  you  personally,  and  in  advance  of  publication,  I 
trust  that  it  may  be  by  you  personally  read  and  weighed. 
In  setting  forth  the  grounds  of  our  belief  and  in  pointing 
out  considerations  which  it  seems  to  us  you  have  unfor¬ 
tunately  overlooked,  I  have  written  frankly,  as  was  my 
duty  on  a  matter  of  such  momentous  importance,  and  as 
I  am  sure  you  would  have  me  write.  But  I  trust  I  have 
done  so  without  offense.  For  your  office  I  have  pro¬ 
found  respect,  for  yourself  personally  the  highest  esteem. 
And  while  the  views  I  have  opposed  seem  to  us  erroneous 
and  dangerous,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  in 
the  slightest  degree  questioning  either  your  sincerity  or 
intelligence  in  adopting  them.  For  they  are  views  all 
but  universally  held  by  the  professed  religious  teachers 
of  Christendom,  in  all  communions  and  creeds,  and  that 
have  received  the  sanction  of  those  looked  to  as  the  wise 
and  learned.  Under  the  conditions  that  have  surrounded 
you,  and  under  the  pressure  of  so  many  high  duties  and 


102 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


responsibilities,  culminating  in  those  of  your  present 
exalted  position,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  you  should 
have  hitherto  thought  to  question  them.  But  I  trust 
that  the  considerations  herein  set  forth  may  induce  you 
to  do  so,  and  even  if  the  burdens  and  cares  that  beset 
you  shall  now  make  impossible  the  careful  consideration 
that  should  precede  expression  by  one  in  your  responsible 
position  I  trust  that  what  I  have  written  may  not  be 
without  use  to  others. 

And,  as  I  have  said,  we  are  deeply  grateful  for  your 
Encyclical.  It  is  much  that  by  so  conspicuously  calling 
attention  to  the  condition  of  labor,  you  have  recalled  the 
fact  forgotten  by  so  many  that  the  social  evils  and 
problems  of  our  time  directly  and  pressingly  concern  the 
church.  It  is  much  that  you  should  thus  have  placed 
the  stamp  of  your  disapproval  on  that  impious  doctrine 
which  directly  and  by  implication  has  been  so  long  and 
so  widely  preached  in  the  name  of  Christianity,  that  the 
sufferings  of  the  poor  are  due  to  mysterious  decrees  of 
Providence  which  men  may  lament  but  cannot  alter. 
Your  Encyclical  will  be  seen  by  those  who  carefully 
analyze  it  to  be  directed  not  against  socialism,  which  in 
moderate  form  you  favor,  but  against  what  we  in  the 
United  States  call  the  single  tax.  Yet  we  have  no  solici¬ 
tude  for  the  truth  save  that  it  shall  be  brought  into  dis¬ 
cussion,  and  we  recognize  in  your  Holiness’s  Encyclical 
a  most  efficient  means  of  promoting  discussion,  and  of 
promoting  discussion  along  the  lines  that  we  deem  of  the 
greatest  importance— the  lines  of  morality  and  religion. 
In  this  you  deserve  the  gratitude  of  all  who  would  follow 
truth,  for  it  is  of  the  nature  of  truth  always  to  prevail 
over  error  where  discussion  goes  on. 

And  the  truth  for  which  we  stand  has  now  made  such 
progress  in  the  minds  of  men  that  it  must  be  heard ;  that 
it  can  never  be  stifled;  that  it  must  go  on  conquering 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


103 


and  to  conquer.  Far-off  Australia  leads  the  van,  and 
has  already  taken  the  first  steps  toward  the  single  tax. 
In  Great  Britain,  in  the  United  States,  and  in  Canada, 
the  question  is  on  the  verge  of  practical  politics  and  soon 
will  be  the  burning  issue  of  the  time.  Continental 
Europe  cannot  long  linger  behind.  Faster  than  ever 
the  world  is  moving. 

Forty  years  ago  slavery  seemed  stronger  in  the  United 
States  than  ever  before,  and  the  market  price  of  slaves — 
both  working  slaves  and  breeding  slaves— was  higher 
than  it  had  ever  been  before,  for  the  title  of  the  owner 
seemed  growing  more  secure.  In  the  shadow  of  the  Hall 
where  the  equal  rights  of  man  had  been  solemnly  pro¬ 
claimed,  the  manacled  fugitive  was  dragged  back  to 
bondage,  and  on  what  to  American  tradition  was  our 
Marathon  of  freedom,  the  slave-master  boasted  that  he 
would  yet  call  the  roll  of  his  chattels. 

Yet  forty  years  ago,  though  the  party  that  was  to 
place  Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  Presidential  chair  had  not 
been  formed,  and  nearly  a  decade  was  yet  to  pass  ere  the 
signal-gun  was  to  ring  out,  slavery,  as  we  may  now  see, 
was  doomed. 

To-day  a  wider,  deeper,  more  beneficent  revolution  is 
brooding,  not  over  one  country,  but  over  the  world. 
Goffs  truth  impels  it,  and  forces  mightier  than  he  has 
ever  before  given  to  man  urge  it  on.  It  is  no  more  in 
the  power  of  vested  wrongs  to  stay  it  than  it  is  in  man’s 
power  to  stay  the  sun.  The  stars  in  their  courses  fight 
against  Sisera,  and  in  the  ferment  of  to-day,  to  him 
who  hath  ears  to  hear,  the  doom  of  industrial  slavery  is 
sealed. 

Where  shall  the  dignitaries  of  the  church  be  in  the 
struggle  that  is  coming,  nay  that  is  already  here?  On 
the  side  of  justice  and  liberty,  or  on  the  side  of  wrong 
and  slavery?  with  the  delivered  when  the  timbrels  shall 


104 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


sound  again,  or  with  the  chariots  and  the  horsemen  that 
again  shall  be  engulfed  in  the  sea  ? 

As  to  the  masses,  there  is  little  fear  where  they  wdll  be. 
Already,  among  those  who  hold  it  with  religious  fervor, 
the  single  tax  counts  great  numbers  of  Catholics,  many 
priests,  secular  and  regular,  and  at  least  some  bishops, 
while  there  is  no  communion  or  denomination  of  the 
many  into  which  English-speaking  Christians  are  divided 
where  its  advocates  are  not  to  be  found. 

Last  Sunday  evening  in  the  New  York  church  that  of 
all  churches  in  the  world  is  most  richly  endowed,  I  saw 
the  cross  carried  through  its  aisles  by  a  hundred  choris¬ 
ters,  and  heard  a  priest  of  that  English  branch  of  the 
church  that  three  hundred  years  since  was  separated 
from  your  obedience,  declare  to  a  great  congregation 
that  the  labor  question  was  at  bottom  a  religious  ques¬ 
tion  ;  that  it  could  only  be  settled  on  the  basis  of  moral 
right;  that  the  first  and  clearest  of  rights  is  the  equal 
right  to  the  use  of  the  physical  basis  of  all  life;  and  that 
no  human  titles  could  set  aside  God’s  gift  of  the  land  to 
all  men. 

And  as  the  cross  moved  by,  and  the  choristers  sang, 

Raise  ye  the  Christian’s  war-cry— 

The  Cross  of  Christ  the  Lord  ! 

men  to  whom  it  was  a  new  thing  bowed  their  heads,  and 
in  hearts  long  steeled  against  the  church,  as  the  willing 
handmaid  of  oppression,  rose  the  “  God  wills  it !  ”  of  the 
grandest  and  mightiest  of  crusades. 

Servant  of  the  Servants  of  God !  I  call  you  by  the 
strongest  and  sweetest  of  your  titles.  In  your  hands 
more  than  in  those  of  any  living  man  lies  the  power  to 
say  the  word  and  make  the  sign  that  shall  end  an  unnat¬ 
ural  divorce,  and  marry  again  to  religion  all  that  is  pure 
and  high  in  social  aspiration. 


OPEN  LETTER  TO  POPE  LEO  XIII.  105 

t 

Wishing  for  your  Holiness  the  cliiefest  of  all  blessings, 
that  you  may  know  the  truth  and  be  freed  by  the  truth  j 
wishing  for  you  the  days  and  the  strength  that  may 
enable  you  by  the  great  service  you  may  render  to 
humanity  to  make  your  pontificate  through  all  coming 
time  most  glorious  5  and  with  the  profound  respect  due 
to  your  personal  character  and  to  your  exalted  office,  I  am, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Henry  George. 


New  York,  September  11,  1891. 


I 


APPENDIX 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER 

OF 

POPE  LEO  XIII. 

ON 

THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR 


OFFICIAL  TRANSLATION 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


TO  our  Venerable  Brethren ,  all  Patriarchs ,  Primates, 
Archbishops,  and  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  World,  in 
grace  and  communion  with  the  Apostolic  See,  Pope  Leo  XIII. 

Venerable  Brethren,  Health  and  Apostolic 

Benediction. 

1.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  spirit  of  revolutionary 
change,  which  has  so  long  been  predominant  in  the 
nations  of  the  world,  should  have  passed  beyond  politics 
and  made  its  influence  felt  in  the  cognate  field  of  prac¬ 
tical  economy.  The  elements  of  a  conflict  are  unmis¬ 
takable  :  the  growth  of  industry,  and  the  surprising 
discoveries  of  science ;  the  changed  relations  of  masters 
and  workmen;  the  enormous  fortunes  of  individuals,  and 
the  poverty  of  the  masses ;  the  increased  self-reliance 
and  the  closer  mutual  combination  of  the  working  popu¬ 
lation  ;  and,  finally,  a  general  moral  deterioration.  The 
momentous  seriousness  of  the  present  state  of  things 
just  now  fills  every  mind  with  painful  apprehension ; 
wise  men  discuss  it ;  practical  men  propose  schemes ; 
popular  meetings,  legislatures,  and  sovereign  princes,  all 
are  occupied  with  it— and  there  is  nothing  which  lias  a 
deeper  hold  on  public  attention , 


110 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


2.  Therefore,  Venerable  Brethren,  as  on  former  occa¬ 
sions,  when  it  seemed  opportune  to  refute  false  teaching, 
We  have  addressed  you  in  the  interest  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  commonweal,  and  have  issued  Letters  on  Political 
Power,  on  Human  Liberty,  on  the  Christian  Constitution 
of  the  State,  and  on  similar  subjects,  so  now  We  have 
thought  it  useful  to  speak  on  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
It  is  a  matter  on  which  We  have  touched  once  or  twice 
already.  But  in  this  Letter  the  responsibility  of  the 
Apostolic  office  urges  Us  to  treat  the  question  expressly 
and  at  length,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  as 
to  the  principles  which  truth  and  justice  dictate  for  its 
settlement.  The  discussion  is  not  easy,  nor  is  it  free 
from  danger.  It' is  not  easy  to  define  the  relative  rights 
and  the  mutual  duties  of  the  wealthy  and  of  the  poor,  of 
capital  and  of  labor.  And  the  danger  lies  in  this,  that 
crafty  agitators  constantly  make  use  of  these  disputes 
to  pervert  men’s  judgments  and  to  stir  up  the  people  to 
sedition. 

3.  But  all  agree,  and  there  can  be  no  question  what¬ 
ever,  that  some  remedy  must  be  found,  and  quickly 
found,  for  the  misery  and  wretchedness  which  press  so 
heavily  at  this  moment  on  the  large  majority  of  the  very 
poor.  The  ancient  workmen’s  Guilds  were  destroyed  in 
the  last  century,  and  no  other  organization  took  their 
place.  Public  institutions  and  the  laws  have  repudiated 
the  ancient  religion.  Hence  by  degrees  it  has  come  to 
pass  that  Working-Men  have  been  given  over,  isolated 
and  defenseless,  to  the  callousness  of  employers,  and  the 
greed  of  unrestrained  competition.  The  evil  has  been 
increased  by  rapacious  Usury,  which,  although  more  than 
once  condemned  by  the  Church,  is  nevertheless,  under  a 
different  form  but  with  the  same  guilt,  still  practised  by 
avaricious  and  grasping  men.  And  to  this  must  be 
added  the  custom  of  working  by  contract,  and  the  con- 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


Ill 


centration  of  so  many  branches  of  trade  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  individuals,  so  that  a  small  number  of  very  rich  men 
have  been  able  to  lay  upon  the  masses  of  the  poor  a  yoke 
little  better  than  slavery  itself. 

4.  To  remedy  these  evils  the  Socialists ,  working  on  the 
poor  man’s  envy  of  the  rich,  endeavor  to  destroy  private 
property,  and  maintain  that  individual  possessions  should 
become  the  common  property  of  all,  to  be  administered 
by  the  State  or  by  municipal  bodies.  They  hold  that, 
by  thus  transferring  property  from  private  persons  to 
the  community,  the  present  evil  state  of  things  will  be 
set  to  rights,  because  each  citizen  will  then  have  his 
equal  share  of  whatever  there  is  to  enjoy.  But  their 
proposals  are  so  clearly  futile  for  all  practical  purposes, 
that  if  they  were  carried  out  the  working-man  himself 
would  be  among  the  first  to  suffer.  Moreover  they  are 
emphatically  unjust,  because  they  would  rob  the  lawful 
possessor,  bring  the  State  into  a  sphere  that  is  not  its 
own,  and  cause  complete  confusion  in  the  community. 

5.  It  is  surely  undeniable  that,  when  a  man  engages 
in  remunerative  labor,  the  very  reason  and  motive  of  his 
work  is  to  obtain  property,  and  to  hold  it  as  his  own 
private  possession.  If  one  man  hires  out  to  another  his 
strength  or  his  industry,  he  does  this  for  the  purpose  of 
receiving  in  return  what  is  necessary  for  food  and  living ; 
he  thereby  expressly  proposes  to  acquire  a  full  and  real 
right,  not  only  to  the  remuneration,  but  also  to  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  that  remuneration  as  he  pleases.  Thus,  if  he 
lives  sparingly,  saves  money,  and  invests  his  savings,  for 
greater  security,  in  land,  the  land  in  such  a  case  is  only 
his  wages  in  another  form ;  and  consequently,  a  working¬ 
man’s  little  estate  thus  purchased  should  be  as  completely 
at  his  own  disposal  as  the  wages  he  receives  for  his  labor. 
But  it  is  precisely  in  this  power  of  disposal  that  owner¬ 
ship  consists,  whether  the  property  be  land  or  movable 


112 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


goods.  The  Socialists ,  therefore,  in  endeavoring  to 
transfer  the  possessions  of  individuals  to  the  community, 
strike  at  the  interests  of  every  wage-earner,  for  they 
deprive  him  of  the  liberty  of  disposing  of  his  wages,  and 
,  thus  of  all  hope  and  possibility  of  increasing  his  stock 
and  of  bettering  his  condition  in  life. 

6.  What  is  of  still  greater  importance,  however,  is  that 
the  remedy  they  propose  is  manifestly  against  justice. 
For  every  man  has  by  nature  the  right  to  possess 
property  as  his  own.  This  is  one  of  the  chief  points  of 
distinction  between  man  and  the  animal  creation.  For 
the  brute  has  no  power  of  self-direction,  but  is  governed 
by  two  chief  instincts,  which  keep  his  powers  alert,  move 
him  to  use  his  strength,  and  determine  him  to  action 
without  the  power  of  choice.  These  instincts  are  self- 
preservation  and  the  propagation  of  the  species.  Both 
can  attain  their  purpose  by  means  of  things  which  are 
close  at  hand  5  beyond  their  surroundings  the  brute  crea¬ 
tion  cannot  go,  for  they  are  moved  to  action  by  sensi¬ 
bility  alone,  and  by  the  things  which  sense  perceives. 
But  with  man  it  is  different  indeed.  He  possesses,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  full  perfection  of  animal  nature,  and 
therefore  he  enjoys,  at  least  as  inuch  as  the  rest  of  the 
animal  race,  the  fruition  of  the  things  of  the  body.  But 
animality,  however  perfect,  is  far  from  being  the  whole 
of  humanity,  and  is  indeed  humanity’s  humble  handmaid, 
made  to  serve  and  obey.  It  is  the  mind,  or  the  reason, 
which  is  the  chief  thing  in  us  who  are  human  beings ;  it 
is  this  which  makes  a  human  being  human,  and  distin¬ 
guishes  him  essentially  and  completely  from  the  brute. 
And  on  this  account — viz.,  that  man  alone  among  animals 
possesses  reason — it  must  be  within  his  right  to  have 
things  not  merely  for  temporary  and  momentary  use,  as 
other  living  beings  have  them,  but  in  stable  and  perma¬ 
nent  possession ;  he  must  have  not  only  things  which 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


113 


perish,  in  the  using,  hut  also  those  which,  though  used, 
remain  for  use  in  the  future. 

7.  This  becomes  still  more  clearly  evident  if  we  con¬ 
sider  man’s  nature  a  little  more  deeply.  For  man, 
comprehending  by  the  power  of  liis  reason  things  innu¬ 
merable,  and  joining  the  future  with  the  present— being, 
moreover,  the  master  of  his  own  acts— governs  himself 
by  the  foresight  of  his  counsel,  under  the  eternal  law  and 
the  power  of  God,  Whose  Providence  governs  all  things ; 
wherefore  it  is  in  his  power  to  exercise  his  choice  not 
only  on  things  which  regard  his  present  welfare,  but  also 
on  those  which  will  be  for  his  advantage  in  time  to  come. 
Hence  man  not  only  can  possess  the  fruits  of  the  earth, 
but  also  the  earth  itself ;  for  of  the  products  of  the  earth 
he  can  make  provision  for  the  future.  Man’s  needs  do 
not  die  out,  but  recur ;  satisfied  to-day,  they  demand  new 
supplies  to-morroAV.  Nature,  therefore,  OAves  to  man  a 
storehouse  that  shall  never  fail,  the  daily  supply  of  his 
daily  wants.  And  this  he  finds  only  in  the  inexhaustible 
fertility  of  the  earth. 

8.  Nor  must  we,  at  this  stage,  have  recourse  to  the 
State.  Man  is  older  than  the  State ;  and  he  holds  the 
right  of  providing  for  the  life  of  his  body  prior  to  the 
formation  of  any  State.  And  to  say  that  God  has  given 
the  earth  to  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  universal 
human  race  is  not  to  deny  that  there  can  be  private 
property.  For  God  has  granted  the  earth  to  mankind  in 
general ;  not  in  the  sense  that  all  Avithout  distinction  can 
deal  with  it  as  they  please,  but  rather  that  no  part  of  it 
has  been  assigned  to  any  one  in  particular,  and  that  the 
limits  of  pri\rate  possession  have  been  left  to  be  fixed  by 
man’s  own  industry  and  the  Iuavs  of  individual  peoples. 
Moreover  the  earth,  though  divided  among  private 
OAvners,  ceases  not  therebv  to  minister  to  the  needs  of 
all;  for  there  is  no  one  wTho  does  not  live  on  what  the 


114 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


land  brings  forth.  Those  who  do  not  possess  the  soil, 
contribute  their  labor  j  so  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that 
all  human  subsistence  is  derived  either  from  labor  on 
one’s  own  land,  or  from  some  laborious  industry  which 
is  paid  for  either  in  the  produce  of  the  land  itself  or  in 
that  which  is  exchanged  for  what  the  land  brings  forth. 

9.  Here,  again,  we  have  another  proof  that  private 
ownership  is  according  to  nature’s  law.  For  that  which 
is  required  for  the  preservation  of  life,  and  for  life’s  well¬ 
being,  is  produced  in  great  abundance  by  the  earth,  but 
not  until  man  has  brought  it  into  cultivation  and  lavished 
upon  it  his  care  and  skill.  Now,  when  man  thus  spends 
the  industry  of  his  mind  and  the  strength  of  his  body  in 
procuring  the  fruits  of  nature,  by  that  act  he  makes  his 
own  that  portion  of  nature’s  field  which  he  cultivates— 
that  portion  on  which  he  leaves,  as  it  were,  the  impress 
of  his  own  personality;  and  it  cannot  but  be  just  that  he 
should  possess  that  portion  as  his  own,  and  should  have 
a  right  to  keep  it  without  molestation. 

10. ^  These  arguments  are  so  strong  and  convincing 
that  it  seems  surprising  that  certain  obsolete  opinions 
should  now  be  revived  in  opposition  to  what  is  here  laid 
down.  We  are  told  that  it  is  right  for  private  persons 
to  have  the  use  of  the  soil  and  the  fruits  of  their  land, 
but  that  it  is  unjust  for  any  one  to  possess  as  owner 
either  the  land  on  which  he  has  built  or  the  estate  which 
he  has  cultivated.  But  those  who  assert  this  do  not 
perceive  that  they  are  robbing  man  of  what  his  own 
labor  has  produced.  For  the  soil  which  is  tilled  and  cul¬ 
tivated  with  toil  and  skill  utterly  changes  its  condition ; 
it  was  wild  before,  it  is  now  fruitful ;  it  was  barren,  and 
now  it  brings  forth  in  abundance.  That  which  has  thus 
altered  and  improved  it  becomes  so  truly  part  of  itself  as 
to  be  in  great  measure  indistinguishable  and  inseparable 
from  it.  Is  it  just  that  the  fruit  of  a  man’s  sweat  and 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


115 


labor  should  be  enjoyed  by  another?  As  effects  follow 
their  cause,  so  it  is  just  and  right  that  the  results  of  labor 
should  belong  to  him  who  has  labored. 

11.  With  reason,  therefore,  the  common  opinion  of 
mankind,  little  affected  by  the  few  dissentients  who  have 
maintained  the  opposite  view,  has  found  in  the  study  of 
nature,  and  in  the  law  of  Nature  herself,  the  foundation 
of  the  division  of  property,  and  has  consecrated  by  the 
practice  of  all  ages  the  principle  of  private  ownership, 
as  being  preeminently  in  conformity  with  human  nature, 
and  as  conducing  in  the  most  unmistakable  manner  to 
the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  human  life.  The  same 
principle  is  confirmed  and  enforced  by  the  civil  laws — 
laws  which,  as  long  as  they  are  just,  derive  their  binding 
force  from  the  law  of  nature.  The  authority  of  the 
Divine  Law  adds  its  sanction,  forbidding  us  in  the  gravest 
terms  even  to  covet  that  which  is  another’s :  —  Thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbor’s  wife;  nor  his  house ,  nor  his  field,  nor 
his  man-servant ,  nor  his  maid-servant ,  nor  his  ox ,  nor  his 
ass,  nor  anything  which  is  his  * 

12.  The  rights  here  spoken  of,  belonging  to  each  indi¬ 
vidual  man,  are  seen  in  a  much  stronger  light  if  they  are 
considered  in  relation  to  man’s  social  and  domestic  obli¬ 
gations. 

13.  In  choosing  a  state  of  life,  it  is  indisputable  that 
all  are  at  full  liberty  either  to  follow  the  counsel  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  to  the  virginity,  or  to  enter  into  the  bonds  of 
marriage.  No  human  law  can  abolish  the  natural  and 
primitive  right  of  marriage,  or  in  any  way  limit  the  chief 
and  principal  purpose  of  marriage,  ordained  by  God’s 
authority  from  the  beginning :  Increase  and  multiply.] 
Thus  we  have  the  Family;  the  “society”  of  a  man’s  own 
household;  a  society  limited  indeed  in  numbers,  but  a 


*  Deuteronomy  v.  21. 


t  Genesis  i.  28. 


116 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


true  “  society,”  anterior  to  every  kind  of  State  or  nation, 
with  rights  and  duties  of  its  own,  totally  independent  of 
the  commonwealth. 

14.  That  right  of  property,  therefore,  which  has  been 
proved  to  belong  naturally  to  individual  persons,  must 
also  belong  to  a  man  in  his  capacity  of  head  of  a  family ; 
nay,  such  a  person  must  possess  this  right  so  much  the 
more  clearly  in  proportion  as  his  position  multiplies  his 
duties.  For  it  is  a  most  sacred  law  of  nature  that  a 
father  must  provide  food  and  all  necessaries  for  those 
whom  he  has  begotten ;  and,  similarly,  nature  dictates 
that  a  man’s  children,  who  carry  on,  as  it  were,  and  con¬ 
tinue  his  own  personality,  should  be  provided  by  him 
with  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  them  honorably  to  keep 
themselves  from  want  and  misery  in  the  uncertainties  of 
this  mortal  life.  Now,  in  no  other  way  can  a  father 
effect  this  except  by  the  ownership  of  profitable  property, 
which  he  can  transmit  to  his  children  by  inheritance.  A 
family,  no  less  than  a  State,  is,  as  We  have  said,  a  true 
society,  governed  by  a  power  within  itself,  that  is  to  say 
by  the  father.  Wherefore,  provided  the  limits  be  not 
transgressed  which  are  prescribed  by  the  very  purposes 
for  which  it  exists,  the  Family  has  at  least  equal  rights 
with  the  State  in  the  choice  and  pursuit  of  those 
things  which  are  needful  to  its  preservation  and  its  just 
liberty. 

15.  We  say,  at  least  equal  rights ;  for  since  the  domes¬ 
tic  household  is  anterior  both  in  idea  and  in  fact  to  the 
gathering  of  men  into  a  commonwealth,  the  former  must 
necessarily  have  rights  and  duties  which  are  prior  to 
those  of  the  latter,  and  which  rest  more  immediately  on 
nature.  If  the  citizens  of  a  State — that  is  to  say,  the 
Families— on  entering  into  association  and  fellowship, 
experienced  at  the  hands  of  the  State  hindrance  instead 
of  help,  and  found  their  rights  attacked  instead  of  being 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


117 


protected,  such  association  were  rather  to  be  repudiated 
than  sought  after. 

16.  The  idea,  then,  that  the  civil  government  should, 
at  its  own  discretion,  penetrate  and  pervade  the  family 
and  the  household,  is  a  great  and  pernicious  mistake. 
True,  if  a  family  finds  itself  in  great  difficulty,  utterly 
friendless,  and  without  prospect  of  help,  it  is  right  that 
extreme  necessity  be  met  by  public  aid ;  for  each  family 
is  a  part  of  the  commonwealth.  In  like  manner,  if 
within  the  walls  of  the  household  there  occur  grave  dis¬ 
turbance  of  mutual  rights,  the  public  power  must  inter¬ 
fere  to  force  each  party  to  give  the  other  what  is  due  5 
for  this  is  not  to  rob  citizens  of  their  rights,  but  justly 
and  properly  to  safeguard  and  strengthen  them.  But 
the  rulers  of  the  State  must  go  no  further :  nature  bids 
them  stop  here.  Paternal  authority  can  neither  be  abol¬ 
ished  by  the  State,  nor  absorbed;  for  it  has  the  same 
source  as  human  life  itself.  “  The  child  belongs  to  the 
father,”  and  is,  as  it  were,  the  continuation  of  the  father’s 
personality ;  and,  to  speak  with  strictness,  the  child  takes 
its  place  in  civil  society  not  in  its  own  right,  but  in  its 
quality  as  a  member  of  the  family  in  which  it  is  begotten. 
And  it  is  for  the  very  reason  that  “the  child  belongs  to 
the  father”  that,  as  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  says,  “before  it 
attains  the  use  of  free  will,  it  is  in  the  power  and  care  of 
its  parents.”*  The  Socialists,  therefore,  in  setting  aside 
the  parent  and  introducing  the  providence  of  the  State, 
act  against  natural  justice,  and  threaten  the  very  existence 

of  familv  life. 

%/ 

17.  And  such  interference  is  not  only  unjust,  but  it  is 
quite  certain  to  harass  and  disturb  all  classes  of  citizens 
and  to  subject  them  to  odious  and  intolerable  slavery. 
It  would  open  the  door  to  envy,  to  evil  speaking,  and  to 


*  St.  Thomas,  Summa  Theologica,  2a  2ee  Q.  x.  Art.  12. 


118 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


quarreling;  the  sources  of  wealth  would  themselves  run 
dry,  for  no  one  would  have  any  interest  in  exerting  his 
talents  or  his  industry ;  and  that  ideal  equality  of  which 
so  much  is  said  would  in  reality  be  the  leveling  down  of 
all  to  the  same  condition  of  misery  and  dishonor. 

18.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  the  main  tenet  of  Socialism , 
the  community  of  goods,  must  be  utterly  rejected ;  for 
it  would  injure  those  whom  it  is  intended  to  benefit,  it 
would  be  contrary  to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind,  and 
it  would  introduce  confusion  and  disorder  into  the  com¬ 
monwealth.  Our  first  and  most  fundamental  principle, 
therefore,  when  we  undertake  to  alleviate  the  condition 
of  the  masses,  must  be  the  inviolability  of  private  prop¬ 
erty.  This  laid  down,  We  go  on  to  show  where  We  must 
find  the  remedy  that  We  seek. 

19.  We  approach  the  subject  with  confidence,  and  in 
the  exercise  of  the  rights  which  belong  to  Us.  For  no 
practical  solution  of  this  question  will  ever  be  found 
without  the  assistance  of  Religion  and  of  the  Church.  It 
is  We  who  are  the  chief  guardian  of  Religion  and  the 
chief  dispenser  of  what  belongs  to  the  Church,  and  We 
must  not  by  silence  neglect  the  duty  which  lies  upon  Us. 
Doubtless  this  most  serious  question  demands  the  atten¬ 
tion  and  the  efforts  of  others  besides  Ourselves— of  the 
rulers  of  States,  of  employers  of  labor,  of  the  wealthy, 
and  of  the  working  population  themselves  for  whom  We 
plead.  ,  But  We  affirm  without  hesitation,  that  all  the 
striving  of  men  will  be  vain  if  they  leave  out  the  Church. 
It  is  the  Church  that  proclaims  from  the  Gospel  those 
teachings  by  which  the  conflict  can  be  put  an  end  to,  or 
at  the  least  made  far  less  bitter;  the  Church  uses  its 
efforts  not  only  to  enlighten  the  mind,  but  to  direct  by 
its  precepts  the  life  and  conduct  of  men ;  the  Church 
improves  and  ameliorates  the  condition  of  the  working- 
man  by  numerous  useful  organizations;  does  its  best  to 


ENCYCLICAL.  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


119 


enlist  the  services  of  all  ranks  in  discussing  and  endea¬ 
voring  to  meet,  in  the  most  practical  way,  the  claims  of 
the  working-classes;  and  acts  on  the  decided  view  that 
for  these  purposes  recourse  should  be  had,  in  due  mea¬ 
sure  and  degree,  to  the  help  of  the  law  and  of  State 
authority. 

20.  Let  it  be  laid  down,  in  the  first  place,  that  human¬ 
ity  must  remain  as  it  is.  It  is  impossible  to  reduce 
human  society  to  a  level.  The  Socialists  may  do  their 
utmost,  but  all  striving  against  nature  is  vain.  There 
naturally  exist  among  mankind  innumerable  differences 
of  the  most  important  kind;  people  differ  in  capability, 
in  diligence,  in  health,  and  in  strength;  and  unequal 
fortune  is  a  necessary  result  of  inequality  in  condition. 
Such  inequality  is  far  from  being  disadvantageous  either 
to  individuals  or  to  the  community ;  social  and  public  life 
can  only  go  on  by  the  help  of  various  kinds  of  capacity 
and  the  playing  of  many  parts;  and  each  man,  as  a  rule, 
chooses  the  part  which  peculiarly  suits  his  case.  As 
regards  bodily  labor,  even  had  man  never  fallen  from  the 
state  of  innocence ,  he  would  not  have  been  wholly  unoccu¬ 
pied;  but  that  which  would  then  have  been  his  free 
choice  and  his  delight,  became  afterwards  compulsory, 
and  the  painful  expiation  of  his  sin.  Cursed  be  the  earth 
in  thy  work  ;  in  thy  labor  thou  shalt  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of 
thy  life  *  In  like  manner,  the  other  pains  and  hardships 
of  life  will  have  no  end  or  cessation  on  this  earth ;  for 
the  consequences  of  sin  are  bitter  and  hard  to  bear,  and 
they  must  be  with  man  as  long  as  life  lasts.  To  suffer 
and  to  endure,  therefore,  is  the  lot  of  humanity ;  let  men 
try  as  they  may,  no  strength  and  no  artifice  will  ever 
succeed  in  banishing  from  human  life  the  ills  and 
troubles  which  beset  it.  If  any  there  are  who  pretend 


Genesis  iii.  17. 


120 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


differently— who  hold  out  to  a  hard-pressed  people  free¬ 
dom  from  pain  and  trouble,  undisturbed  repose,  and 
constant  enjoyment — they  cheat  the  people  and  impose 
upon  them,  and  their  lying  promises  will  only  make  the 
evil  worse  than  before.  There  is  nothing  more  useful 
than  to  look  at  the  world  as  it  really  is— and  at  the  same 
time  to  look  elsewhere  for  a  remedy  to  its  troubles. 

21.  The  great  mistake  that  is  made  in  the  matter  now 
under  consideration  is  to  possess  one’s  self  of  the  idea 
that  class  is  naturally  hostile  to  class ;  that  rich  and  poor 
are  intended  by  nature  to  live  at  war  with  one  another. 
So  irrational  and  so  false  is  this  view,  that  the  exact 
contrary  is  the  truth.  Just  as  the  symmetry  of  the 
human  body  is  the  result  of  the  disposition  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  body,  so  in  a  State  it  is  ordained  by  nature 
that  these  two  classes  should  exist  in  harmony  and  agree¬ 
ment,  and  should,  as  it  were,  fit  into  one  another,  so  as 
to  maintain  the  equilibrium  of  the  body  politic.  Each 
requires  the  other;  capital  cannot  do  without  labor,  nor 
labor  without  capital.  Mutual  agreement  results  in 
pleasantness  and  good  order;  perpetual  conflict  neces¬ 
sarily  produces  confusion  and  outrage.  Now,  in  pre¬ 
venting  such  strife  as  this,  and  in  making  it  impossible* 
the  efficacy  of  Christianity  is  marvelous  and  manifold. 
First  of  all,  there  is  nothing  more  powerful  than  Religion 
(of  which  the  Church  is  the  interpreter  and  guardian)  in 
drawing  rich  and  poor  together,  by  reminding  each  class 
of  its  duties  to  the  other,  and  especially  of  the  duties  of 
justice.  Thus  Religion  teaches  the  laboring-man  and  the 
workman  to  carry  out  honestly  and  well  all  equitable 
agreements  freely  made ;  never  to  injure  capital,  or  to 
outrage  the  person  of  an  employer;  never  to  employ 
violence  in  representing  his  own  cause,  or  to  engage  in 
riot  or  disorder;  and  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  men  of 
evil  principles,  who  work  upon  the  people  with  artful 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


121 


promises,  and  raise  foolish  hopes  which  usually  end  in 
disaster  and  in  repentance  when  too  late.  Religion 
teaches  the  rich  man  and  the  employer  that  their  work¬ 
people  are  not  their  slaves  5  that  they  must  respect  in 
every  man  his  dignity  as  a  man  and  as  a  Christian ;  that 
labor  is  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of,  if  we  listen  to  right 
reason  and  to  Christian  philosophy,  but  is  an  honorable 
employment,  enabling  a  man  to  sustain  his  life  in  an 
upright  and  creditable  way ;  and  that  it  is  shameful  and 
inhuman  to  treat  men  like  chattels  to  make  money  by,  or 
to  look  upon  them  merely  as  so  much  muscle  or  physical 
power.  Thus,  again,  Religion  teaches  that,  as  among  the 
workman’s  concerns  are  Religion  herself  and  things 
spiritual  and  mental,  the  employer  is  bound  to  see  that 
he  has  time  for  the  duties  of  piety;  that  he  be  not 
exposed  to  corrupting  influences  and  dangerous  occa¬ 
sions  ;  and  that  he  be  not  led  away  to  neglect  his  home 
and  family  or  to  squander  his  wages.  Then,  again,  the 
employer  must  never  tax  his  work-people  bejmnd  their 
strength,  nor  employ  them  in  work  unsuited  to  their  sex 
or  age.  His  great  and  principal  obligation  is  to  give  to 
every  one  that  which  is  just.  Doubtless  before  we  can 
decide  whether  wages  are  adequate,  many  things  have  to 
be  considered ;  but  rich  men  and  masters  should  remem¬ 
ber  this — that  to  exercise  pressure  for  the  sake  of  gain 
upon  the  indigent  and  the  destitute,  and  to  make  one’s 
profit  out  of  the  need  of  another  is  condemned  by  all 
laws,  human  and  divine.  To  defraud  any  one  of  wages 
that  are  his  due  is  a  crime  which  cries  to  the  avenging 
anger  of  Heaven.  Behold ,  the  hire  of  the  laborers  . 
which  by  fraud  hath  been  hept  bach  by  you,  crieth ;  and  the 
cry  of  them  hath  entered  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sab- 
aoth *  Finally,  the  rich  must  religiously  refrain  from 


* 


St.  James  v.  4. 


122 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


t 

cutting  down  the  workman’s  earnings,  either  by  force,  by 
fraud,  or  by  usurious  dealing ;  and  with  the  more  reason 
because  the  poor  man  is  weak  and  unprotected,  and 
because  his  slender  means  should  be  sacred  in  proportion 
to  their  scantiness. 

22.  Were  these  prospects  carefully  obeyed  and  fol¬ 
lowed,  would  not  strife  die  out  and  cease  ? 

23.  But  the  Church,  with  Jesus  Christ  for  its  Master 
and  Guide,  aims  higher  still.  It  lays  down  precepts  yet 
more  perfect,  and  tries  to  bind  class  to  class  in  friendli¬ 
ness  and  good  understanding.  The  things  of  this  earth 
cannot  be  understood  or  valued  rightly  without  taking 
into  consideration  the  life  to  come,  the  life  that  will  last 
forever.  Exclude  the  idea  of  futurity,  and  the  very 
notion  of  what  is  good  and  right  would  perish  ;  nay,  the 
whole  system  of  the  universe  would  become  a  dark  and 
unfathomable  mystery.  The  great  truth  which  we  learn 
from  Nature  herself  is  also  the  grand  Christian  dogma 
on  which  Religion  rests  as  on  its  base— that  when  we 
have  done  with  this  present  life  then  shall  we  really 
begin  to  live.  God  has  not  created  us  for  the  perishable 
and  transitory  things  of  earth,  but  for  things  heavenly 
and  everlasting;  He  has  given  us  this  world  as  a  place 
of  exile,  and  not  as  our  true  country.  Money,  and  the 
other  things  which  men  call  good  and  desirable— we  may 
have  them  in  abundance,  or  we  may  want  them  alto¬ 
gether  ;  as  far  as  eternal  happiness  is  concerned,  it  is  no 
matter;  the  only  thing  that  is  important  is  to  use  them 
aright.  J esus  Christ,  when  He  redeemed  us  with  plentiful 
redemption ,  took  not  away  the  pains  and  sorrows  which 
in  such  large  proportion  make  up  the  texture  of  our 
mortal  life ;  He  transformed  them  into  motives  of  virtue 
and  occasions  of  merit ;  and  no  man  can  hope  for  eternal 
reward  unless  he  follow  in  the  blood-stained  footprints 
of  his  Saviour.  If  we  suffer  ivith  Him,  ive  shall  also  reign 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


123 


with  Him*  His  labors  and  His  sufferings,  accepted  by 
His  own  free  will,  have  marvelously  sweetened  all  suffer¬ 
ing  and  all  labor.  And  not  only  by  His  example,  but  by 
His  grace  and  by  the  hope  of  everlasting  recompense,  He 
has  made  pain  and  grief  more  easy  to  endure  j  for  that 
which  is  at  present  momentary  and  light  of  our  tribulation, 
worheth  for  us  above  measure  exceedingly  an  eternal  weight 
of  glory. \ 

24.  Therefore  those  whom  fortune  favors  are  warned 
that  freedom  from  sorrow  and  abundance  of  earthly 
riches  are  no  guaranty  of  the  beatitude  that  shall  never 
end,  but  rather  the  contrary;!  that  the  rich  should 
tremble  at  the  threatenings  of  Jesus  Christ — threatenings 
so  strange  in  the  mouth  of  Our  Lord  5  §  and  that  a  most 
strict  account  must  be  given  to  the  Supreme  Judge  for 
all  that  we  possess.  The  chiefest  and  most  excellent  rule 
for  the  right  use  of  money  is  one  which  the  heathen 
philosophers  indicated,  but  which  the  Church  has  traced 
out  clearly,  and  has  not  only  made  known  to  men’s 
minds,  but  has  impressed  upon  their  lives.  It  rests  on 
the  principle  that  it  is  one  thing  to  have  a  right  to  the 
possession  of  money,  and  another  to  have  a  right  to  use 
money  as  one  pleases.  Private  ownership,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  the  natural  right  of  man;  and  to  exercise  that 
right,  especially  as  members  of  society,  is  not  only 
lawful,  but  absolutely  necessary.  It  is  lawful,  says  St. 
Thomas  of  Aquin,  for  a  man  to  hold  private  property  ;  and 
it  is  also  necessary  for  the  carrying  on  of  human  life.  ||  But 
if  the  question  be  asked,  How  must  one’s  possessions  be 
used  ?  the  Church  replies  without  hesitation  in  the  words 
of  the  same  holy  Doctor :  Man  should  not  consider  his  out- 


*  2  Timothy  ii.  12.  t  2  Corinthians  iv.  17. 

t  St.  Matthew  xix.  23,  24.  $  St.  Luke  vi.  24,  25. 

||  2a  2sb  Q.  lxvi.  Art.  2. 


124 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


ward  possessions  as  Ms  own,  but  as  common  to  all,  so  as  to 
share  them  without  difficulty  when  others  are  in  need. 
Whence  the  Apostle  saith,  Command  the  rich  of  this  world 
...  to  give  with  ease,  to  communicate *  True,  no  one  is 
commanded  to  distribute  to  others  that  which  is  required 
for  his  own  necessities  and  those  of  his  household;  nor 
even  to  give  away  what  is  reasonably  required  to  keep  up 
becomingly  his  condition  in  life ;  for  no  one  ought  to  live 
unbecomingly .f  But  when  necessity  has  been  supplied, 
and  one’s  position  fairly  considered,  it  is  a  duty  to  give 
to  the  indigent  out  of  that  which  is  over.  That  which 
remaineth,  give  alms.%  It  is  a  duty,  not  of  justice  (except 
in  extreme  cases),  but  of  Christian  charity — a  duty  which 
is  not  enforced  by  human  law.  But  the  laws  and  judg¬ 
ments  of  men  must  give  place  to  the  laws  and  judgments 
of  Christ  the  true  God,  Who  in  many  ways  urges  on  His 
followers  the  practice  of  almsgiving — It  is  more  blessed  to 
give  than  to  receive  ;§  and  Who  will  count  a  kindness  done 
or  refused  to  the  poor  as  done  or  refused  to  Himself—  as 
long  as  you  did  it  to  one  of  My  least  brethren,  you  did  it  to 
Me. ||  Thus,  to  sum  up  what  has  been  said:  Whoever  has 
received  from  the  Divine  bounty  a  large  share  of  bless¬ 
ings,  whether  they  be  external  and  corporeal  or  gifts  of 
the  mind,  has  received  them  for  the  purpose  of  using 
them  for  the  perfecting  of  his  own  nature,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  that  he  may  employ  them,  as  the  minister  of 
God’s  Providence,  for  the  benefit  of  others.  He  that  hath 
a  talent,  says  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  let  him  see  that  he 
hide  it  not ;  he  that  hath  abundance ,  let  him  arouse  himself 
to  mercy  and  generosity  ;  he  that  hath  art  and  skill,  let  him  do 
his  best  to  share  the  use  and  utility  thereof  with  his  neighbor .fi 


*  2a  2ae  Q.  lxv.  Art.  2.  t  Ibid.  Q.  xxxii.  Art.  6. 

t  St.  Luke  xi.  41.  §  Acts  xx.  35.  ||  St.  Matthew  xxv.  40. 

St.  Gregory  the  Great,  Horn.  ix.  in  Evangel,  n.  7. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


125 


25.  As  for  those  who  do  not  possess  the  gifts  of  for¬ 
tune,  they  are  taught  by  the  Church  that,  in  God’s  sight, 
poverty  is  no  disgrace,  and  that  there  is  nothing  to  be 
ashamed  of  in  seeking  one’s  bread  by  labor.  This  is 
strengthened  by  what  we  see  in  Christ  Himself,  Who 
whereas  He  teas  rich,  for  our  sakes  became  poor;  *  and  Who, 
being  the  Son  of  God,  and  God  Himself,  chose  to  seem 
and  to  be  considered  the  son  of  a  carpenter— nay,  did 
not  disdain  to  spend  a  great  part  of  His  life  as  a  car¬ 
penter  Himself.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter ,  the  Son  of 
Mary  f  t  From  the  contemplation  of  this  Divine  example 
it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  true  dignity  and  excel¬ 
lence  of  man  lies  in  his  moral,  qualities,  that  is,  in  virtue  ; 
that  virtue  is  the  common  inheritance  of  all,  equally 
within  the  reach  of  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor;  and 
that  virtue,  and  virtue  alone,  wherever  found,  will  be  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  rewards  of  everlasting  happiness.  Nay, 
God  Himself  seems  to  incline  more  to  those  who  suffer 
evil;  for  Jesus  Christ  calls  the  poor  blessed  ;f  He  lov¬ 
ingly  invites  those  in  labor  and  grief  to  come  to  Him  for 
solace  ;§  and  He  displays  the  tenderest  charity  to  the 
lowly  and  the  oppressed.  These  reflections  cannot  fail 
to  keep  down  the  pride  of  those  who  are  well  off,  and  to 
cheer  the  spirit  of  the  afflicted;  to  incline  the  former  to 
generosity  and  the  latter  to  tranquil  resignation.  Thus 
the  separation  which  pride  would  make  tends  to  disap¬ 
pear,  nor  will  it  be  difficult  to  make  rich  and  poor  join 
hands  in  friendly  concord. 

26.  But,  if  Christian  precepts  prevail,  the  two  classes 
will  not  only  be  united  in  the  bonds  of  friendship  but 
also  in  those  of  brotherly  love.  For  they  will  understand 

*  2  Corinthians  viii.  9.  t  St.  Mark  vi.  3. 

$  St.  Matthew  v.  3  :  “Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit ” 

§  Ibid.  xi.  28 :  “  Come  to  Me,  all  you  that  labor  and  are  burdened, 
and  1  will  refresh  you.” 


126 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


and  feel  that  all  men  are  the  children  of  the  common 
Father,  that  is,  of  God ;  that  all  have  the  same  last  end, 
which  is  God  Himself,  Who  alone  can  make  either  men 
or  angels  absolutely  and  perfectly  happy  $  that  all  and 
each  are  redeemed  by  Jesus  Christ  and  raised  to  the 
dignity  of  children  of  God,  and  are  thus  united  in  bro¬ 
therly  ties  both  with  each  other  and  with  Jesus  Christ, 
the  first-born,  among  many  brethren;  that  the  blessings  of 
nature  and  the  gifts  of  grace  belong  in  common  to  the 
whole  human  race,  and  that  to  all,  except  to  those  that 
are  unworthy,  is  promised  the  inheritance  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  Heaven.  If  sons,  heirs  also  ;  heirs  indeed  of  God, 
and  co-heirs  of  Christ* 

27.  Such  is  the  scheme  of  duties  and  of  rights  which  is 
put  forth  to  the  world  by  the  Gospel.  Would  it  not 
seem  that  strife  must  quickly  cease  were  society  pene¬ 
trated  with  ideas  like  these? 

28.  But  the  Church,  not  content  with  pointing  out  the 
remedy,  also  applies  it.  For  the  Church  does  its  utmost 
to  teach  and  to  train  men,  and  to  educate  them ;  and  by 
means  of  its  Bishops  and  Clergy  it  diffuses  its  salutary 
teachings  far  and  wide.  It  strives  to  influence  the  mind 
and  heart  so  that  all  may  willingly  yield  themselves  to 
be  formed  and  guided  by  the  commandments -of  God.  It 
is  precisely  in  this  fundamental  and  principal  matter, 
on  which  everything  depends,  that  the  Church  has  a 
power  peculiar  to  itself.  The  agencies  which  it  employs 
are  given  it  for  the  very  purpose  of  reaching  the  hearts 
of  men,  by  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  and  derive  their  effi¬ 
ciency  from  God.  They  alone  can  touch  the  innermost 
heart  and  conscience,  and  bring  men  to  act  from  a  motive 
of  duty,  to  resist  their  passions  and  appetites,  to  love 
God  and  their  fellow-men  with  a  love  that  is  unique  and 


* 


Romans  viii.  17. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


127 


supreme,  and  courageously  to  break  down  every  barrier 
which  stands  in  the  way  of  a  virtuous  life. 

29.  On  this  subject  We  need  only  recall  for  one 
moment  the  examples  written  down  in  history.  Of  these 
things  there  cannot  be  the  shadow  of  doubt ;  for  instance, 
that  civil  society  was  renovated  in  every  part  by  the 
teachings  of  Christianity;  that  in  the  strength  of  that 
renewal  the  human  race  was  lifted  up  to  better  things— 
nay,  that  it  was  brought  back  from  death  to  life,  and  to 
so.  excellent  a  life  that  nothing  more  perfect  had  been 
known  before,  or  will  come  to  pass  in  the  ages  that  have 
yet  to  be.  Of  this  beneficent  transformation  Jesus 
Christ  was  at  once  the  first  cause  and  the  final  purpose; 
as  from  Him  all  came,  so  to  Him  all  was  to  be  referred. 
For  when,  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel  message,  the  human 
race  came  to  know  the  grand  mystery  of  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Word  and  the  redemption  of  man,  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ,  God  and  Man,  penetrated  every  race  and  nation, 
and  impregnated  them  with  His  faith,  His  precepts,  and 
His  laws.  And  if  Society  is  to  be  cured  now,  in  no 
other  way  can  it  be  cured  but  by  a  return  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  life  and  Christian  institutions.  When  a  society  is 
perishing,  the  true  advice  to  give  to  those  who  would 
restore  it  is,  to  recall  it  to  the  principles  from  which  it 
sprang ;  for  the  purpose  and  perfection  of  an  association 
is  to  aim  at  and  to  attain  that  for  which  it  was  formed ; 
and  its  operation  should  be  put  in  motion  and  inspired 
by  the  end  and  object  which  originally  gave  it  its  being. 
So  that  to  fall  away  from  its  primal  constitution  is 
disease ;  to  go  back  to  it  is  recovery.  And  this  may  be 
asserted  with  the  utmost  truth  both  of  the  State  in 
general  and  of  that  body  of  its  citizens — by  far  the 
greater  number — who  sustain  life  by  labor. 

30.  Neither  must  it  be  supposed  that  the  solicitude  of 
the  Church  is  so  occupied  with  the  spiritual  concerns  of 


128 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


its  children  as  to  neglect  their  interests  temporal  and 
earthly.  Its  desire  is  that  the  poor,  for  example,  should 
rise  above  poverty  and  wretchedness,  and  should  better 
their  condition  in  life;  and  for  this  it  strives.  By  the 
very  fact  that  it  calls  men  to  virtue  and  forms  them  to 
its  practice,  it  promotes  this  in  no  slight  degree.  Chris¬ 
tian  morality,  when  it  is  adequately  and  completely  prac¬ 
tised,  conduces  of  itself  to  temporal  prosperity,  for  it 
merits  the  blessing  of  that  God  Who  is  the  source  of  all 
blessings ;  it  powerfully  restrains  the  lust  of  possession 
and  the  lust  of  pleasure— twin  plagues,  which  too  often 
make  a  man  without  self-restraint  miserable  in  the  midst 
of  abundance  ;#  it  makes  men  supply  by  economy  for  the 
want  of  means,  teaching  them  to  be  content  with  frugal 
living,  and  keeping  them  out  of  the  reach  of  those  vices 
which  eat  up  not  merely  small  incomes,  but  large  for¬ 
tunes,  and  dissipate  many  a  goodly  inheritance. 

31.  Moreover,  the  Church  intervenes  directly  in  the 
interest  of  the  poor,  by  setting  on  foot  and  keeping  up 
many  things  which  it  sees  to  be  efficacious  in  the  relief 
of  poverty.  Here  again  it  has  always  succeeded  so  well 
that  it  has  even  extorted  the  praise  of  its  enemies.  Such 
was  the  ardor  of  brotherly  love  among  the  earliest  Chris¬ 
tians  that  numbers  of  those  who  were  better  off  deprived 
themselves  of  their  possessions  in  order  to  relieve  their 
brethren ;  whence  neither  was  the/re  any  one  needy  among 
them. f  To  the  order  of  Deacons,  instituted  for  that  very 
purpose,  was  committed  by  the  Apostles  the  charge  of 
the  daily  distributions;  and  the  Apostle  Paul,  though 
burdened  with  the  solicitude  of  all  the  churches,  hesitated 
not  to  undertake  laborious  journeys  in  order  to  carry  the 
alms  of  the  faithful  to  the  poorer  Christians.  Tertullian 


*  “  The  root  of  all  evils  is  cupidity.”— 1  Tim.  vi.  10. 
t  Acts  iv.  34. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


129 


calls  these  contributions,  given  voluntarily  by  Christians 
in  their  assemblies,  deposits  of  piety ;  because,  to  cite  his 
words,  they  were  employed  in  feeding  the  needy ,  in  burying 
them ,  in  the  support  of  boys  and  girls  destitute  of  means  and 
deprived  of  their  parents ,  in  the  care  of  the  aged  and  in  the 
relief  of  the  shipwrecked  .* 

32.  Thus  by  degrees  came  into  existence  the  patrimony 
which  the  Church  has  guarded  with  religious  care  as  the 
inheritance  of  the  poor.  Nay,  to  spare  them  the  shame 
of  begging,  the  common  Mother  of  rich  and  poor  has 
exerted  herself  to  gather  together  funds  for  the  support 
of  the  needy.  The  Church  has  stirred  up  everywhere 
the  heroism  of  charity,  and  has  established  Congrega¬ 
tions  of  Religious  and  many  other  useful  institutions  for 
help  and  mercy,  so  that  there  might  be  hardly  any  kind 
of  suffering  which  was  not  visited  and  relieved.  At  the 
present  day  there  are  many  who,  like  the  heathen  of  old, 
blame  and  condemn  the  Church  for  this  beautiful  char¬ 
ity.  They  would  substitute  in  its  place  a  system  of 
State-organized  relief.  But  no  human  methods  will 
ever  supply  for  the  devotion  and  self-sacrifice  of  Chris¬ 
tian  charity.  Charity,  as  a  virtue,  belongs  to  the  Church ; 
for  it  is  no  virtue  unless  it  is  drawn  from  the  Sacred 
Heart  of  J esus  Christ ;  and  he  who  turns  his  back  on  the 
Church  cannot  be  near  to  Christ. 

33.  It  cannot,  however,  be  doubted  that  to  attain  the 
purpose  of  which  We  treat,  not  only  the  Church,  but  all 
human  means  must  conspire.  All  who  are  concerned  in 
the  matter  must  be  of  one  mind  and  must  act  together.  It 
is  in  this,  as  in  the  Providence  which  governs  the  world ; 
results  do  not  happen  save  where  all  the  causes  cooperate. 

34.  Let  us  now,  therefore,  inquire  what  part  the  State 
should  play  in  the  work  of  remedy  and  relief. 


*  Apologia  Secunda,  xxxix. 


130 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


35.  By  the  State  We  here  understand,  not  the  partic¬ 
ular  form  of  government  which  prevails  in  this  or  that 
nation,  but  the  State  as  rightly  understood;  that  is  to 
say,  any  government  conformable  in  its  institutions  to 
right  reason  and  natural  law,  and  to  those  dictates  of  the 
Divine  wisdom  which  We  have  expounded  in  the  Encyc¬ 
lical  on  the  Christian  Constitution  of  the  State.  The 
first  duty,  therefore,  of  the  rulers  of  the  State  should  be 
to  make  sure  that  the  laws  and  institutions,  the  general 
character  and  administration  of  the  commonwealth,  shall 
be  such  as  to  produce  of  themselves  public  well-being 
and  private  prosperity.  This  is  the  proper  office  of  wise 
statesmanship  and  the  work  of  the  heads  of  the  State. 
Now,  a  State  chiefly  prospers  and  flourishes  by  morality, 
by  well-regulated  family  life,  by  respect  for  religion  and 
justice,  by  the  moderation  and  equal  distribution  of 
public  burdens,  by  the  progress  of  the  arts  and  of  trade, 
by  the  abundant  yield  of  the  land— by  everything  which 
makes  the  citizens  better  and  happier.  Here,  then,  it  is 
in  the  power  of  a  ruler  to  benefit  every  order  of  the 
State,  and  amongst  the  rest  to  promote  in  the  highest 
degree  the  interests  of  the  poor;  and  this  by  virtue  of 
his  office,  and  without  being  exposed  to  any  suspicion  -of 
undue  interference — for  it  is  the  province  of  the  common¬ 
wealth  to  consult  for  the  common  good.  And  the  more 
that  is  done  for  the  working  population  by  the  general 
laws  of  the  country,  the  less  need  will  there  be  to  seek 
for  particular  means  to  relieve  them. 

36.  There  is  another  and  a  deeper  consideration  which 
must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  To  the  State  the  interests  of 
all  are  equal,  whether  high  or  low.  The  poor  are  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  national  community  equally  with  the  rich; 
they  are  real  component  parts,  living  parts,  which  make 
up,  through  the  family,  the  living  body;  and  it  need 
hardly  be  said  that  they  are  by  far  the  majority.  It 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


131 


would  be  irrational  to  neglect  one  portion  of  the  citizens 
and  to  favor  another;  and  therefore  the  public  adminis¬ 
tration  must  duly  and  solicitously  provide  for  the  welfare 
and  the  comfort  of  the  working-people,  or  else  that  law 
of  justice  will  be  violated  which  ordains  that  each  shall 
have  his  due.  To  cite  the  wise  words  of  St.  Thomas  of 
Aquin :  As  the  part  and  the  whole  are  in  a  certain  sense 
identical ,  the  part  map  in  some  sense  claim  what  belongs  to 
the  whole*  Among  the  many  and  grave  duties  of  rulers 
who  would  do  their  best  for  the  people,  the  first  and 
chief  is  to- act  with  strict  justice— with  that  justice  which 
is  called  in  the  Schools  distributive— toward  each  and 
every  class. 

37.  But  although  all  citizens,  without  exception,  can 
and  ought  to  contribute  to  that  common  good  in  which 
individuals  share  so  profitably  to  themselves,  yet  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  all  can  contribute  in  the  same  way 
and  to  the  same  extent.  No  matter  what  changes  may 
be  made  in  forms  of  government,  there  will  always  be 
differences  and  inequalities  of  condition  in  the  State : 
Society  cannot  exist  or  be  conceived  without  them. 
Some  there  must  be  who  dedicate  themselves  to  the  work 
of  the  commonwealth,  who  make  the  laws,  who  administer 
justice,  whose  advice  and  authority  govern  the  nation  in 
times  of  peace,  and  defend  it  in  war.  Such  men  clearly 
occupy  the  foremost  place  in  the  State,  and  should  be 
held  in  the  foremost  estimation,  for  their  work  touches 
most  nearly  and  effectively  the  general  interests  of  the 
community.  Those  who  labor  at  a  trade  or  calling  do 
not  promote  the  general  welfare  in  such  a  fashion  as 
this ;  but  they  do  in  the  most  important  way  benefit  the 
nation,  though  less  directly.  We  have  insisted  that, 
since  it  is  the  end  of  Society  to  make  men  better,  the 


*  2a  2se  Q.  lxi.  Art.  1  ad  2. 


132 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


chief  good  that  Society  can  be  possessed  of  is  Virtue. 
Nevertheless,  in  all  well-constituted  States  it  is  a  by  no 
means  unimportant  matter  to  provide  those  bodily  and 
external  commodities,  the  use  of  which  is  necessary  to  virtu¬ 
ous  action  *  And  in  the  provision  of  material  well-being, 
the  labor  of  the  poor — the  exercise  of  their  skill  and  the 
employment  of  their  strength  in  the  culture  of  the  land 
and  the  workshops  of  trade— is  most  efficacious  and  alto¬ 
gether  indispensable.  Indeed,  their  cooperation  in  this 
respect  is  so  important  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that  it 
is  only  by  the  labor  of  the  working-man  that  States  grow 
rich.  Justice,  therefore,  demands  that  the  interests  of 
the  poorer  population  be  carefully  watched  over  by  the 
Administration,  so  that  they  who  contribute  so  largely 
to  the  advantage  of  the  community  may  themselves  share 
in  the  benefits  they  create— that  being  housed,  clothed, 
and  enabled  to  support  life,  they  may  find  their  existence 
less  hard  and  more  endurable.  It  follows  that  whatever 
shall  appear  to  be  conducive  to  the  well-being  of  those 
who  work  should  receive  favorable  consideration.  Let  it 
not  be  feared  that  solicitude  of  this  kind  will  injure  any 
interest;  on  the  contrary,  it  will  be  to  the  advantage  of 
all ;  for  it  cannot  but  be  good  for  the  commonwealth  to 
secure  from  misery  those  on  whom  it  so  largely  depends. 

38.  We  have  said  that  the  State  must  not  absorb  the 
individual  or  the  family;  both  should  be  allowed  free 
and  untrammeled  action  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the 
common  good  and  the  interest  of  others.  Nevertheless, 
rulers  should  anxiously  safeguard  the  community  and  all 
its  parts ;  the  community,  because  the  conservation  of 
the  community  is  so  emphatically  the  business  of  the 
supreme  power  that  the  safety  of  the  commonwealth  is 
not  only  the  first  law,  but  it  is  a  Government’s  whole 


*  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  Dc  Regimme  Principium ,  I.  cap.  15. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


133 


reason  of  existence ;  and  the  parts,  because  both  philoso¬ 
phy  and  the  Gospel  agree  in  laying  down  that  the  object 
of  the  administration  of  the  State  should  be,  not  the 
advantage  of  the  ruler  but  the  benefit  of  those  over 
whom  he  rules.  The  gift  of  authority  is  from  God,  and 
is,  as  it  were,  a  participation  of  the  highest  of  all  sover¬ 
eignties  5  and  it  should  be  exercised  as  the  power  of  God 
is  exercised— with  a  fatherly  solicitude  which  not  only 
guides  the  whole,  but  reaches  to  details  as  well. 

39.  Whenever  the  general  interest  of  any  particular 
class  suffers,  or  is  threatened  with,  evils  which  can  in  no 
other  way  be  met,  the  public  authority  must  step  in  to 
meet  them.  Now,  among  the  interests  of  the  public,  as 
of  private  individuals,  are  these :  that  peace  and  good 
order  should  be  maintained ;  that  family  life  should  be 
carried  on  in  accordance  with  God’s  laws  and  those  of 
nature ;  that  Religion  should  be  reverenced  and  obeyed ; 
that  a  high  standard  of  morality  should  prevail  in  public 
and  private  life;  that  sanctity  of  justice  should  be 
respected,  and  that  no  one  should  injure  another  with 
impunity ;  that  the  members  of  the  commonwealth 
should  grow  up  to  man’s  estate  strong  and  robust,  and 
capable,  if  need  be,  of  guarding  and  defending  their 
country.  If  by  a  strike,  or  other  combination  of  work¬ 
men,  there  should  be  imminent  danger  of  disturbance  to 
the  public  peace ;  or  if  circumstances  wTere  such  that 
among  the  laboring  population  the  ties  of  family  life 
were  relaxed;  if  Religion  were  found  to  suffer  through 
the  workmen  not  having  time  and  opportunity  to  prac¬ 
tise  it;  if  in  workshops  and  factories  there  were  danger 
to  morals  through  the  mixing  of  the  sexes  or  from  any 
occasion  of  evil;  or  if  employers  laid  burdens  upon  the 
workmen  which  were  unjust,  or  degraded  them  with 
conditions  that  were  repugnant  to  their  dignity  as 
human  beings;  finally,  if  health  were  endangered  by 


134 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


excessive  labor,  or  by  work  unsuited  to  sex  or  age— in 
these  cases,  there  can  be  no  question  that,  within  certain 
limits,  it  would  be  right  to  call  in  the  help  and  authority 
of  the  law.  The  limits  must  be  determined  by  the  nature 
of  the  occasion  which  calls  for  the  law’s  interference— 
the  principle  being  this,  that  the  law  must  not  undertake 
more,  or  go  further,  than  is  required  for  the  remedy  of 
the  evil  or  the  removal  of  the  danger. 

40.  Rights  must  be  religiously  respected  wherever  they 
are  found  j  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  authority  to 
prevent  and  punish  injury,  and  to  protect  each  one  in 
the  possession  of  his  own.  Still,  when  there  is  question 
of  protecting  the  rights  of  individuals,  the  poor  and  help¬ 
less  have  a  claim  to  special  consideration.  The  richer 
population  have  many  ways  of  protecting  themselves, 
and  stand  less  in  need  of  help  from  the  State ;  those  who 
are  badly  off  have  no  resources  of  their  own  to  fall  back 
upon,  and  must  chiefly  rely  upon  the  assistance  of  the 
State.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  wage-earners,  who 
are  undoubtedly  among  the  weak  and  necessitous,  should 
be  specially  cared  for  and  protected  by  the  common¬ 
wealth. 

41.  Here,  however,  it  will  be  advisable  to  advert 
expressly  to  one  or  two  of  the  more  important  details. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  chief  thing  to  be 
secured  is  the  safeguarding,  by  legal  enactment  and 
policy,  of  private  property.  Most  of  all  is  it  essential  in 
these  times  of  covetous  greed,  to  keep  the  multitude 
within  the  line  of  duty  ;  for  if  all  may  justly  strive  to 
better  their  condition,  yet  neither  justice  nor  the  common 
good  allows  any  one  to  seize  that  which  belongs  to 
another,  or,  under  the  pretext  of  futile  and  ridiculous 
equality,  to  lay  hands  on  other  people’s  fortunes.  It  is 
most  true  that  by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  people  who 
work  prefer  to  improve  themselves  by  honest  labor 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


135 


rather  than  by  doing  wrong  to  others.  But  there  are 
not  a  few  who  are  imbued  with  bad  principles  and  are 
anxious  for.  revolutionary  change,  and  whose  great  pur¬ 
pose  it  is  to  stir  up  tumult  and  bring  about  a  policy  of 
violence.  The  authority  of  the  State  should  intervene  to 
put  restraint  upon  these  disturbers,  to  save  the  workmen 
from  their  seditious  arts,  and  to  protect  lawful  owners 
from  spoliation. 

42.  When  work-people  have  recourse  to  a  strike,  it  is 
frequently  because  the  hours  of  labor  are  too  long,  or  the 
work  too  hard,  or  because  they  consider  their  wages 
insufficient.  The  grave  inconvenience  of  this  not  uncom¬ 
mon  occurrence  should  be  obviated  by  public  remedial 
measures  ;  for  such  paralysis  of  labor  not  only  affects  the 
masters  and  their  work-people,  but  is  extremely  injurious 
to  trade,  and  to  the  general  interests  of  the  public ; 
moreover,  on  such  occasions,  violence  and  disorder  are 
generally  not  far  off,  and  thus  it  frequently  happens  that 
the  public  peace  is  threatened.  The  laws  should  be 
beforehand,  and  prevent  these  troubles  from  arising- 
they  should  lend  their  influence  and  authority  to  the 
removal  in  good  time  of  the  causes  which  lead  to  conflicts 
between  masters  and  those  whom  they  employ. 

43.  But  if  the  owners  of  property  must  be  made 
secure,  the  Workman,  too,  has  property  and  possessions 
in  which  he  must  be  protected ;  and,  first  of  all,  there  are 
his  spiritual  and  mental  interests.  Life  on  earth,  how¬ 
ever  good  and  desirable  in  itself,  is  not  the  final  purpose 
for  which  man  is  created ;  it  is  only  the  way  and  the 
means  to  that  attainment  of  truth,  and  that  practice  of 
goodness  in  which  the  full  life  of  the  soul  consists.  It  is 
the  soul  which  is  made  after  the  image  and  likeness  of 
God;  it  is  in  the  soul  that  sovereignty  resides,  in  virtue 
of  which  man  is  commanded  to  rule  the  creatures  below 
him,  and  to  use  all  the  earth  and  the  ocean  for  his  profit 


I 


136 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


and  advantage.  Fill  the  earth  and  subdue  it ;  and  rule  over 
the  fishes  of  the  sea ,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air ,  and  all  living 
creatures  which  move  upon  the  earth  *  In  this  respect  all 
men  are  equal;  there  is  no  difference  between  rich  and 
poor,  master  and  servant,  ruler  and  ruled,  for  the  same  is 
lord  over  all.]  No  man  may  outrage  with  impunity  that 
human  dignity  which  God  Himself  treats  with  reverence , 
nor  stand  in  the  way  of  that  higher  life  which  is  the  prep¬ 
aration  for  the  eternal  life  of  Heaven.  Nay,  more;  a 
man  has  here  no  power  over  himself.  To  consent  to  any 
treatment  which  is  calculated  to  defeat  the  end  and  pur¬ 
pose  of  his  being  is  beyond  his  right ;  he  cannot  give  up 
his  soul  to  servitude  ;  for  it  is  not  man’s  own  rights  which 
are  here  in  question,  but  the  rights  of  God,  most  sacred 
and  inviolable. 

44.  From  this  follows  the  obligation  of  the  cessation 
of  work  and  labor  on  Sundays  and  certain  festivals. 
This  rest  from  labor  is  not  to  be  understood  as  mere  idle¬ 
ness;  much  less  must  it  be  an  occasion  of  spending 
money  and  of  vicious  excess,  as  many  would  desire  it  to 
be ;  but  it  should  be  rest  from  labor  consecrated  by  reli¬ 
gion.  Repose  united  with  religious  observance  disposes 
man  to  forget  for  a  while  the  business  of  this  daily  life, 
and  to  turn  his  thoughts  to  heavenly  things  and  to  the 
worship  which  he  so  strictly  owes  to  the  Eternal  Deity. 
It  is  this,  above  all,  which  is  the  reason  and  motive  of 
the  Sunday  rest ;  a  rest  sanctioned  by  God’s  great  law  of 
the  ancient  covenant,  Remember  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath 
Dayf  and  taught  to  the  world  by  His  own  mysterious 
“rest”  after  the  creation  of  man;  He  rested  on  the  seventh 
day  from  all  His  work  which  He  had  done.§ 

45.  If  we  turn  now  to  things  exterior  and  corporeal, 


*  Genesis  i.  28. 
J  Exodus  xx.  8. 


t  Romans  x.  12. 
§  Genesis  ii.  2. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


137 


the  first  concern  of  all  is  to  save  the  poor  workers  from 
the  cruelty  of  grasping  speculators,  who  use  human 
beings  as  mere  instruments  for  making  money.  It  is 
neither  justice  nor  humanity  so  to  grind  men  down  with 
excessive  labor  as  to  stupefy  their  minds  and  wear  out 
their  bodies.  Man’s  powers,  like  his  general  nature,  are 
limited,  and  beyond  these  limits  he  cannot  go.  His 
strength  is  developed  and  increased  by  use  and  exercise, 
but  only  on  condition  of  due  intermission  and  proper 
rest.  Daily  labor,  therefore,  must  be  so  regulated  that 
it  may  not  be  protracted  during  longer  hours  than 
strength  admits.  How  many  and  how  long  the  intervals 
of  rest  should  be,  will  depend  on  the  nature  of  the  work, 
on  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  and  on  the  health 
and  strength  of  the  workman.  Those  who  labor  in 
mines  and  quarries,  and  in  work  within  the  bowels  of 
the  earth,  should  have  shorter  hours  in  proportion  as 
their  labor  is  more  severe  and  more  trying  to  health. 
Then,  again,  the  season  of  the  year  must  be  taken  into 
account ;  for  not  unfrequently  a  kind  of  labor  is  easy  at 
one  time  which  at  another  is  intolerable  or  very  difficult. 
Finally,  work  which  is  suitable  for  a  strong  man  cannot 
reasonably  be  required  from  a  woman  or  a  child.  And, 
in  regard  to  children,  great  care  should  be  taken  not  to 
place  them  in  workshops  and  factories  until  their  bodies 
and  minds  are  sufficiently  mature.  For  just  as  rough 
weather  destroys  the  buds  of  Spring,  so  too  early  an 
experience  of  fife’s  hard  work  blights  the  young  promise 
of  a  child’s  powers,  and  makes  any  real  education  impos¬ 
sible.  Women,  again,  are  not  suited  to  certain  trades; 
for  a  woman  is  by  nature  fitted  for  home-work,  and  it 
is  that  which  is  best  adapted  at  once  to  preserve  her 
modesty  and  to  promote  the  good  bringing  up  of  children 
and  the  well-being  of  the  family.  As  a  general  principle 
it  may  be  laid  down  that  a  workman  ought  to  have 


138 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


leisure  and  rest  in  proportion  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  his 
strength  j  for  the  waste  of  strength  must  be  repaired  by 
the  cessation  of  work. 

46.  In  all  agreements  between  masters  and  work-people 
there  is  always  the  condition,  expressed  or  understood, 
that  there  be  allowed  proper  rest  for  soul  and  body.  To 
agree  in  any  other  sense  would  be  against  what  is  right 
and  just ;  for  it  can  never  be  right  or  just  to  require  on 
the  one  side,  or  to  promise  on  the  other,  the  giving  up  of 
those  duties  which  a  man  owes  to  his  G-od  and  to  himself. 

47.  We  now  approach  a  subject  of  very  great  impor¬ 
tance,  and  one  on  which,  if  extremes  are  to  be  avoided, 
right  ideas  are  absolutely  necessary.  Wages,  we  are 
told,  are  fixed  by  free  consent ;  and,  therefore,  the 
employer,  when  he  pays  what  was  agreed  upon,  has  done 
his  part  and  is  not  called  upon  for  anything  further. 
The  only  way,  it  is  said,  in  which  injustice  could  happen 
would  be  if  the  master  refused  to  pay  the  whole  of  the 
wages,  or  the  workman  would  not  complete  the  work 
undertaken ;  when  this  happens  the  State  should  inter¬ 
vene,  to  see  that  each  obtains  his  own— but  not  under 
any  other  circumstances. 

48.  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  by  no  means  convincing 
to  a  fair-minded  man,  for  there  are  important  considera¬ 
tions  which  it  leaves  out  of  view  altogether.  To  labor  is 
to  exert  one’s  self  for  the  sake  of  procuring  what  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  purposes  of  life,  and  most  of  all  for  self-pres¬ 
ervation.  In  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  thou  slialt  eat  bread  * 
Therefore  a  man’s  labor  has  two  notes  or  characters. 
First  of  all,  it  is  personal ,  for  the  exertion  of  individual 
power  belongs  to  the  individual  who  puts  it  forth, 
employing  this  power  for  that  personal  profit  for  which 
it  was  given.  Secondly,  man’s  labor  is  necessary ,  for 


* 


Genesis  iii.  19. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII.  139 

without  the  results  of  labor  a  man  cannot  live  j  and  self- 
conservation  is  a  law  of  Nature,  which  it  is  wrong  to 
disobey.  Now,  if  we  were  to  consider  labor  merely  so 
far  as  it  is  personal ,  doubtless  it  would  be  within  the 
workman’s  right  to  accept  any  rate  of  wages  whatever  • 
for  in  the  same  way  as  he  is  free  to  work  or  not,  so  he  is 
free  to  accept  a  small  remuneration  or  even  none  at  all. 
But  this  is  a  mere  abstract  supposition  $  the  labor  of  the 
working-man  is  not  only  his  personal  attribute,  but  it  is 
necessary  ;  and  this  makes  all  the  difference.  The  preser¬ 
vation  of  life  is  the  bounden  duty  of  each  and  all,  and  to 
fail  therein  is  a  crime.  It  follows  that  each  one  has  a 
right  to  procure  what  is  required  in  order  to  live,  and 
the  poor  can  procure  it  in  no  other  way  than  by  work 
and  wages. 

49.  Let  it  be  granted  then  that,  as  a  rule,  workman 
and  employer  should  make  free  agreements,  and  in  partic¬ 
ular  should  freely  agree  as  to  wages ;  nevertheless,  there 
is  a  dictate  of  nature  more  imperious  and  more  ancient 
than  any  bargain  between  man  and  man,  that  the  remu¬ 
neration  must  be  enough  to  support  the  wage-earner  in 
reasonable  and  frugal  comfort.  If  through  necessity  or 
fear  of  a  worse  evil  the  workman  accepts  harder  condi¬ 
tions  because  an  employer  or  a  contractor  will  give  him 
no  better,  he  is  the  victim  of  force  and  injustice.  In 
these  and  similar  questions,  however  —  such  as,  for 
example,  the  hours  of  labor  in  different  trades,  the  sani¬ 
tary  precautions  to  be  observed  in  factories  and  work¬ 
shops,  etc.— in  order  to  supersede  undue  interference  on 
the  part  of  the  State,  especially  as  circumstances,  times, 
and  localities  differ  so  widely,  it  is  advisable  that  recourse 
be  had  to  Societies  or  Boards  such  as  We  shall  mention 
presently,  or  to  some  other  method  of  safeguarding  the 
interests  of  wage-earners ;  the  State  to  be  asked  for 
approval  and  protection. 


140 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


50.  If  a  workman’s  wages  be  sufficient  to  enable  him 
to  maintain  himself,  his  wife,  and  his  children  in  reason¬ 
able  comfort,  he  will  not  find  it  difficult,  if  he  is  a  sensible 
man,  to  study  economy ;  and  he  will  not  fail,  by  cutting 
down  expenses,  to  put  by  a  little  property;  nature  and 
reason  would  urge  him  to  this.  We  have  seen  that  this 
great  Labor  question  cannot  be  solved  except  by  assum¬ 
ing  as  a  principle  that  private  ownership  must  be  held 
sacred  and  inviolable.  The  law,  therefore,  should  favor 
ownership,  and  its  policy  should  be  to  induce  as  many  of 
the  people  as  possible  to  become  owners. 

51.  Many  excellent  results  will  follow  from  this;  and 
first  of  all,  property  will  certainly  become  more  equitably 
divided.  For  the  effect  of  civil  change  and  revolution 
has  been  to  divide  society  into  two  widely  differing 
castes.  On  the  one  side  there  is  the  party  which  holds 
the  power  because  it  holds  the  wealth;  which  has  in  its 
grasp  all  labor  and  all  trade,  which  manipulates  for  its 
own  benefit  and  its  own  purposes  all  the  sources  of 
supply,  and  which  is  powerfully  represented  in  the  coun¬ 
cils  of  the  State  itself.  On  the  other  side  there  is  the 
needy  and  powerless  multitude,  sore  and  suffering,  and 
always  ready  for  disturbance.  If  working-people  can  be 
encouraged  to  look  forward  to  obtaining  a  share  in  the 
land,  the  result  will  be  that  the  gulf  between  vast  wealth 
and  deep  poverty  will  be  bridged  over,  and  the  two 
orders  will  be  brought  nearer  together.  Another  conse¬ 
quence  will  be  the  greater  abundance  of  the  fruits  of  the 
earth.  Men  alwaj^s  work  harder  and  more  readily  when 
they  work  on  that  which  is  their  own ;  nay,  they  learn  to 
love  the  very  soil  which  yields  in  response  to  the  labor  of 
their  hands,  not  only  food  to  eat,  but  an  abundance  of 
good  things  for  themselves  and  those  that  are  dear  to 
them.  It  is  evident  how  such  a  spirit  of  willing  labor 
would  add  to  the  produce  of  the  earth  and  to  the  wealth 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


141 


of  the  community.  And  a  third  advantage  would  arise 
from  this :  men  would  cling  to  the  country  in  which  they 
were  born ;  for  no  one  would  exchange  his  country  for 
a  foreign  land  if  his  own  afforded  him  the  means  of  liv¬ 
ing  a  tolerable  and  happy  life.  These  three  important 
benefits,  however,  can  only  be  expected  on  the  condition 
that  a  man’s  means  be  not  drained  and  exhausted  by 
excessive  taxation.  The  right  to  possess  private  property 
is  from  nature,  not  from  man  •  and  the  State  has  only 
the  right  to  regulate  its  use  in  the  interests  of  the  public 
good,  but  by  no  means  to  abolish  it  altogether.  The 
State  is  therefore  unjust  and  cruel  if,  in  the  name  of 
taxation,  it  deprives  the  private  owner  of  more  than  is 
just. 

52.  In  the  last  place— employers  and  workmen  may 
themselves  effect  much  in  the  matter  of  which  We  treat, 
by  means  of  those  institutions  and  organizations  which 
afford  opportune  assistance  to  those  in  need,  and  which 
draw  the  two  orders  more  closely  together.  Among 
these  may  be  enumerated :  Societies  for  mutual  help ; 
various  foundations  established  by  private  persons  for 
providing  for  the  workman,  and  for  his  widow  or  his 
orphans,  in  sudden  calamity,  in  sickness,  and  in  the 
event  of  death;  and  what  are  called  u patronages”  or 
institutions  for  the  care  of  boys  and  girls,  for  young 
people  and  also  for  those  of  more  mature  age. 

53.  The  most  important  of  all  are  Workmen’s  Asso¬ 
ciations  ;  for  these  virtually  include  all  the  rest.  History 
attests  what  excellent  results  were  effected  by  the  Artifi¬ 
cers’  Guilds  of  a  former  day.  They  were  the  means  not 
only  of  many  advantages  to  the  workmen,  but  in  no 
small  degree  of  the  advancement  of  art,  as  numerous 
monuments  remain  to  prove.  Such  associations  should 
be  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  the  age  in  which  we 
live— an  age  of  greater  instruction,  of  different  customs, 


142  THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 

and  of  more  numerous  requirements  in  daily  life.  It  is 
gratifying  to  know  that  there  are  actually  in  existence 
not  a  few  Societies  of  this  nature,  consisting  either  of 
workmen  alone  or  of  workmen  and  employers  together; 
but  it  were  greatly  to  be  desired  that  they  should  mul¬ 
tiply  and  become  more  effective.  We  have  spoken  of 
them  more  than  once ;  but  it  will  be  well  to  explain  here 
how  much  they  are  needed,  to  show  that  they  exist  by 
their  own  right,  and  to  enter  into  their  organization  and 
their  work. 

54.  The  experience  of  his  own  weakness  urges  man  to 
call  in  help  from  without.  We  read  in  the  pages  of  Holy 
Writ:  It  is  letter  that  two  should  he  together  than  one  ;  for 
they  have  the  advantage  of  their  society.  If  one  fall  he  shall 
be  supported  by  the  other.  Woe  to  him  that  is  alone,  for 
when  he  falletli  he  hath  none  to  lift  him  up*  And  further : 
A  brother  that  is  helped  by  his  brother  is  like  a  strong  city .f 
It  is  this  natural  impulse  which  unites  men  in  civil 
society ;  and  it  is  this  also  which  makes  them  band 
themselves  together  in  associations  of  citizen  with  citizen ; 
associations  which,  it  is  true,  cannot  be  called  societies 
in  the  complete  sense  of  the  word,  but  which  are  societies 
nevertheless. 

55.  These  lesser  societies  and  the  society  which  consti¬ 
tutes  the  State  differ  in  many  things,  because  their  imme¬ 
diate  purpose  and  end  is  different.  Civil  society  exists 
for  the  common  good,  and  therefore  is  concerned  with 
the  interests  of  all  in  general,  and  with  individual  inter¬ 
ests  in  their  due  place  aW  proportion.  Hence  it  is  called 
public  society,  because  by  its  means,  as  St.  Thomas  of 
Aquin  says,  Men  communicate  with  one  another  in  the 
setting  up  of  a  commonwealth. \  But  the  societies  which 
are  formed  in  the  bosom  of  the  State  are  called  private , 


*  Ecclesiastes  iv.  9,  10.  t  Proverbs  xviii.  19. 

t  Contra  impugnantcs  Dei  cultum  et  religioncm ,  Cap.  II. 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


143 


and  justly  so,  because  their  immediate  purpose  is  the 
private  advantage  of  the  associates.  Now  a  private 
society ,  says  St.  Thomas  again,  is  one  which  is  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  out  private  business  ;  as  when  two  or 
three  enter  into  a  partnership  ivith  the  view  of  trading  in 
conjunction  *  Particular  societies,  then,  although  they 
exist  within  the  State,  and  are  each  a  part  of  the  State, 
nevertheless  cannot  be  prohibited  by  the  State  absolutely 
and  as  such.  For  to  enter  into  u  society  ”  of  this  kind  is 
the  natural  right  of  man  j  and  the  State  must  protect 
natural  rights,  not  destroy  them  5  and  if  it  forbids  its 
citizens  to  form  associations,  it  contradicts  the  very  prin¬ 
ciple  of  its  own  existence ;  for  both  they  and  it  exist  in 
virtue  of  the  same  principle,  viz.,  the  natural  propensity 
of  man  to  live  in  society. 

56.  There  are  times,  no  doubt,  when  it  is  right  that 
the  law  should  interfere  to  prevent  association  •  as  when 
men  join  together  for  purposes  which  are  evidently  bad, 
unjust,  or  dangerous  to  the  State.  In  such  cases  the 
public  authority  may  justly  forbid  the  formation  of  asso¬ 
ciations,  and  may  dissolve  them  when  they  already  exist. 
But  every  precaution  should  be  taken  not  to  violate  the 
rights  of  individuals  and  not  to  make  unreasonable  regu¬ 
lations  under  the  pretense  of  public  benefit.  For  laws 
oidy  bind  when  they  are  in  accordance  with  right  reason, 
and  therefore  with  the  eternal  law  of  God.f 

57.  And  here  we  are  reminded  of  the  Confraternities, 
Societies,  and  Religious  Orders,  which  have  arisen  by  the 
Church’s  authority  and  the  piety  of  the  Christian  people. 


*  Ibid. 

t  “Human  law  is  law  only  in  virtue  of  its  accordance  ivith  right 
reason:  and  thus  it  is  manifest  that  it  flows  from  the  eternal  law.  And 
in  so  far  as  it  deviates  from  right  reason  it  is  called  an  unjust  law;  in 
such  case  it  is  not  law  at  all,  but  rather  a  species  of  violence.” — St. 
Thomas  of  Aquin,  Summa  Theologica,  la  2ae  Q.  xciii.  Art.  3. 


144 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


The  annals  of  every  nation  down  to  our  own  times  testify 
to  what  they  have  done  for  the  human  race.  It  is  indis¬ 
putable,  on  grounds  of  reason  alone,  that  such  associa¬ 
tions,  being  perfectly  blameless  in  their  objects,  have  the 
sanction  of  the  law  of  nature.  On  their  religious  side 
they  rightly  claim  to  be  responsible  to  the  Church  alone. 
The  administrators  of  the  State,  therefore,  have  no  rights 
over  them,  nor  can  they  claim  any  share  in  their  manage¬ 
ment ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  State’s  duty  to  respect 
and  cherish  them,  and,  if  necessary,  to  defend  them  from 
attack.  It  is  notorious  that  a  very  different  course  has 
been  followed,  more  especially  in  our  own  times.  In 
many  places  the  State  has  laid  violent  hands  on  these 
communities,  and  committed  manifold  injustice  against 
them  $  it  has  placed  them  under  the  civil  law,  taken  away 
their  rights  as  corporate  bodies,  and  robbed  them  of  their 
property.  In  such  property  the  Church  had  her  rights, 
each  member  of  the  body  had  his  or  her  rights,  and  there 
were  also  the  rights  of  those  who  had  founded  or 
endowed  them  for  a  definite  purpose,  and  of  those  for 
whose  benefit  and  assistance  they  existed.  Wherefore 
We  cannot  refrain  from  complaining  of  such  spoliation 
as  unjust  and  fraught  with  evil  results;  and  with  the 
more  reason  because,  at  the  very  time  when  the  law  pro¬ 
claims  that  association  is  free  to  all,  We  see  that  Catholic 
societies,  however  peaceable  and  useful,  are  hindered  in 
every  way,  whilst  the  utmost  freedom  is  given  to  men 
whose  objects  are  at  once  hurtful  to  Religion  and  dan¬ 
gerous  to  the  State. 

58.  Associations  of  every  kind,  and  especially  those  of 
working-men,  are  now  far  more  common  than  formerly. 
In  regard  to  many  of  these  there  is  no  need  at  present  to 
inquire  whence  they  spring,  what  are  their  objects,  or 
what  means  they  use.  But  there  is  a  good  deal  of  evi¬ 
dence  which  goes  to  prove  that  many  of  these  societies 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


145 


are  in  the  hands  of  invisible  leaders,  and  are  managed  on 
principles  far  from  compatible  with  Christianity  and  the 
public  well-being ;  and  that  they  do  their  best  to  get  into 
their  hands  the  whole  field  of  labor  and  to  force  workmen 
either  to  join  them  or  to  starve.  Under  these  circum¬ 
stances  Christian  workmen  must  do  one  of  two  things : 
either  join  Associations  in  which  their  religion  will  be 
exposed  to  peril,  or  form  associations  among  themselves 
—unite  their  forces  and  courageously  shake  off  the  yoke 
of  an  unjust  and  intolerable  oppression.  No  one  who 
does  not  wish  to  expose  man’s  chief  good  to  extreme 
danger  will  hesitate  to  say  that  the  second  alternative 
must  by  all  means  be  adopted. 

59.  Those  Catholics  are  worthy  of  all  praise — and 
there  are  not  a  few— who,  understanding  what  the  times 
require,  have,  by  various  enterprises  and  experiments, 
endeavored  to  better  the  condition  of  the  working-people 
without  any  sacrifice  of  principle.  They  have  taken  up 
the  cause  of  the  working-man,  and  have  striven  to  make 
both  families  and  individuals  better  off;  to  infuse  the 
spirit  of  justice  into  the  mutual  relations  of  employer 
and  employed;  to  keep  before  the  eyes  of  both  classes 
the  precepts  of  duty  and  the  laws  of  the  Gospel— that 
Gospel  which,  by  inculcating  self-restraint,  keeps  men 
within  the  bounds  of  moderation,  and  tends  to  establish 
harmony  among  the  divergent  interests  and  various 
classes  which  compose  the  State.  It  is  with  such  ends 
in  view  that  We  see  men  of  eminence  meeting  together 
for  discussion,  for  the  promotion  of  united  action,  and 
for  practical  work.  Others,  again,  strive  to  unite  work¬ 
ing-people  of  various  kinds  into  associations,  help  them 
with  their  advice  and  their  means,  and  enable  them  to 
obtain  honest  and  profitable  work.  The  Bishops,  on 
their  part,  bestow  their  ready  good  will  and  support; 
and  with  their  approval  and  guidance  many  members  of 


146 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


the  clergy,  both  secular  and  regular,  labor  assiduously 
on  behalf  of  the  spiritual  and  mental  interests  of  the 
members  of  Associations.  And  there  are  not  wanting 
Catholics  possessed  of  affluence  who  have,  as  it  were,  cast 
in  their  lot  with  the  wage-earners,  and  who  have  spent 
large  sums  in  founding  and  widely  spreading  Benefit  and 
Insurance  Societies ;  by  means  of  which  the  working-man 
may  without  difficulty  acquire  by  his  labor  not  only 
many  present  advantages,  but  also  the  certainty  of 
honorable  support  in  time  to  come.  How  much  this 
multiplied  and  earnest  activity  has  benefited  the  com¬ 
munity  at  large  is  too  well  known  to  require  Us  to  dwell 
upon  it.  We  find  in  it  the  grounds  of  the  most  cheering 
hope  for  the  future ;  provided  that  the  Associations  We 
have  described  continue  to  grow  and  spread,  and  are  well 
and  wisely  administered.  Let  the  State  watch  over  these 
Societies  of  citizens  united  together  in  the  exercise  of 
their  right ;  but  let  it  not  thrust  itself  into  their  peculiar 
concerns  and  their  organization ;  for  things  move  and  live 
by  the  soul  within  them,  and  they  may  be  killed  by  the 
grasp  of  a  hand  from  without. 

60.  In  order  that  an  Association  may  be  carried  on 
with  unity  of  purpose  and  harmony  of  action,  its  organi¬ 
zation  and  government  must  be  firm  and  wise.  All  such 
Societies,  being  free  to  exist,  have  the  further  right  to 
adopt  such  rules  and  organization  as  may  best  conduce 
to  the  attainment  of  their  objects.  We  do  not  deem  it 
possible  to  enter  into  definite  details  on  the  subject  of 
organization :  this  must  depend  on  national  character,  on 
practice  and  experience,  on  the  nature  and  scope  of  the 
work  to  be  done,  on  the  magnitude  of  the  various  trades 
and  emploj^ments,  and  on  other  circumstances  of  fact 
and  of  time— all  of  which  must  be  carefully  weighed. 

61.  Speaking  summarily,  we  may  lay  it  down  as  a 
general  and  perpetual  law,  that  Workmen's  Associations 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


147 


should  be  so  organized  and  governed  as  to  furnish  the 
best  and  most  suitable  means  for  attaining  what  is  aimed 
at,  that  is  to  say,  for  helping  each  individual  member  to 
better  his  condition  to  the  utmost  in  body,  mind,  and 
property.  It  is  clear  that  they  must  pay  special  and 
principal  attention  to  piety  and  morality,  and  that  their 
internal  discipline  must  be  directed  precisely  by  these 
considerations;  otherwise  they  entirely  lose  their  special 
character,  and  come  to  be  very  little  better  than  those 
Societies  which  take  no  account  of  Religion  at  all.  What 
advantage  can  it  be  to  a  Workman  to  obtain  by  means 
of  a  Society  all  that  he  requires,  and  to  endanger  his 
soul  for  want  of  spiritual  food  ?  What  doth  it  profit  a 
man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  suffer  the  loss  of  his  own 
soul ?*  This,  as  Our  Lord  teaches,  is  the  note  or  char¬ 
acter  that  distinguishes  the  Christian  from  the  heathen. 
After  all  these  things  do  the  heathens  seek.  .  .  .  Seek  ye 
first  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  justice ,  and  all  these 
things  shall  be  added  unto  you.]  Let  our  associations, 
then,  look  first  and  before  all  to  God;  let  religious 
instruction  have  therein  a  foremost  place,  each  one  being 
carefully  taught  what  is  his  duty  to  God,  what  to  believe, 
what  to  hope  for,  and  how  to  work  out  his  salvation ; 
and  let  all  be  warned  and  fortified  with  especial  solicitude 
against  wrong  opinions  and  false  teaching.  Let  the 
working-man  be  urged  and  led  to  the  worship  of  God,  to 
the  earnest  practice  of  religion,  and,  among  other  things, 
to  the  sanctification  of  Sundays  and  festivals.  Let  him 
learn  to  reverence  and  love  Holv  Church,  the  common 
Mother  of  us  all;  and  so  to  obey  the  precepts  and  to 
frequent  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church,  those  Sacra¬ 
ments  being  the  means  ordained  by  God  for  obtaining 
forgiveness  of  sin  and  for  leading  a  holy  life. 


* 


St.  Matthew  xvi.  26. 


t  St.  Matthew  vi.  32,  33. 


148 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


62.  The  foundations  of  the  organization  being  laid  in 
Religion,  We  next  go  on  to  determine  the  relations  of  the 
members  one  to  another,  in  order  that  they  may  live 
together  in  concord  and  go  on  prosperously  and  success¬ 
fully.  The  offices  and  charges  of  the  Society  should  be 
.  distributed  for  the  good  of  the  Society  itself,  and  in  such 
manner  that  difference  in  degree  or  position  should  not 
interfere  with  unanimity  and  good  will.  Office-bearers 
should  be  appointed  with  prudence  and  discretion,  and 
each  one’s  charge  should  be  carefully  marked  out;  thus 
no  member  will  suffer  wrong.  Let  the  common  funds 
be  administered  with  the  strictest  honesty,  in  such  way 
that  a  member  receive  assistance  in  proportion  to  his 
necessities.  The  rights  and  duties  of  employers  should 
be  the  subject  of  careful  consideration  as  compared  with 
the  rights  and  duties  of  the  employed.  If  it  should 
happen  that  either  a  master  or  a  workman  deemed 
himself  injured,  nothing  would  be  more  desirable  than 
that  there  should  be  a  committee  composed  of  honest  and 
capable  men  of  the  Association  itself,  whose  duty  it 
should  be,  by  the  laws  of  the  Association,  to  decide  the 
dispute.  Among  the  purposes  of  a  Society  should  be  to 
try  to  arrange  for  a  continuous  supply  of  work  at  all 
times  and  seasons ;  and  to  create  a  fund  from  which  the 
members  may  be  helped  in  their  necessities,  not  only  in 
cases  of  accident,  but  also  in  sickness,  old  age,  and  mis¬ 
fortune. 

63.  Such  rules  and  regulations,  if  obeyed  willingly  by 
all,  will  sufficiently  insure  the  well-being  of  poor  people ; 
whilst  such  mutual  Associations  among  Catholics  are 
certain  to  be  productive,  in  no  small  degree,  of  prosper¬ 
ity  to  the  State.  It  is  not  rash  to  conjecture  the  future 
from  the  past.  Age  gives  way  to  age,  but  the  events  of 
one  century  are  wonderfully  like  those  of  another;  for 
they  are  directed  by  the  Providence  of  God,  Who  over- 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


149 


rules  the  course  of  history  in  accordance  with  His  pur¬ 
poses  in  creating  the  race  of  man.  We  are  told  that  it 
was  cast  as  a  reproach  on  the  Christians  of  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church,  that  the  greater  number  of  them  had 
to  live  by  begging  or  by  labor.  Yet,  destitute  as  they 
were  of  wealth  and  influence,  they  ended  by  winning 
over  to  their  side  the  favor  of  the  rich  and  the  good  will 
of  the  powerful.  They  showed  themselves  industrious, 
laborious,  and  peaceful,  men  of  justice,  and,  above  all, 
men  of  brotherly  love.  In  the  presence  of  such  a  life 
and  such  an  example  prejudice  disappeared,  the  tongue 
of  malevolence  was  silenced,  and  the  lying  traditions  of 
ancient  superstition  yielded  little  by  little  to  Christian 
truth. 

64.  At  this  moment  the  condition  of  the  working  popu¬ 
lation  is  the  question  of  the  hour ;  and  nothing  can  be  of 
higher  interest  to  all  classes  of  the  State  than  that  it 
should  be  rightly  and  reasonably  decided.  But  it  will 
be  easy  for  Christian  working-men  to  decide  it  right  if 
they  form  Associations,  choose  wise  guides,  and  follow 
the  same  path  which  with  so  much  advantage  to  them¬ 
selves  and  the  commonwealth  was  trod  by  their  fathers 
before  them.  Prejudice,  it  is  true,  is  mighty,  and  so  is 
the  love  of  money;  but  if  the  sense  of  what  is  just  and 
right  be  not  destroyed  by  depravity  of  heart,  their 
fellow-citizens  are  sure  to  be  won  over  to  a  kindly  feeling 
toward  men  whom  they  see  to  be  so  industrious  and  so 
modest,  who  so  unmistakably  prefer  honest}^  to  lucre, 
and  the  sacredness  of  duty  to  all  other  considerations. 

65.  And  another  great  advantage  would  result  from 
the  state  of  things  We  are  describing:  there  would  be  so 
much  more  hope  and  possibility  of  recalling  to  a  sense 
of  their  duty  those  working-men  who  have  either  given 
up  their  faith  altogether,  or  whose  lives  are  at  variance 
with  its  precepts.  These  men,  in  most  cases,  feel  that 


150 


THE  CONDITION  OF  LABOR. 


they  have  been  fooled  by  empty  promises  and  deceived 
by  false  appearances.  They  cannot  but  perceive  that 
their  grasping  employers  too  often  treat  them  with  the 
greatest  inhumanity  and  hardly  care  for  them  beyond 
the  profit  their  labor  brings ;  and  if  they  belong  to  an 
Association,  it  is  probably  one  in  which  there  exists,  in 
place  of  charity  and  love,  that  intestine  strife  which 
always  accompanies  nnresigned  and  irreligious  poverty. 
Broken  in  spirit  and  worn  down  in  body,  how  many  of 
them  would  gladly  free  themselves  from  this  galling 
slavery !  But  human  respect,  or  the  dread  of  starvation, 
makes  them  afraid  to  take  the  step.  To  such  as  these 
Catholic  Associations  are  of  incalculable  service,  helping 
them  out  of  their  difficulties,  inviting  them  to  companion¬ 
ship,  and  receiving  the  repentant  to  a  shelter  in  which 
they  may  securely  trust. 

66.  We  have  now  laid  before  you,  Venerable  Brethren, 

who  are  the  persons,  and  what  are  the  means,  by  which 

this  most  difficult  question  must  be  solved.  Every  one 

must  put  his  hand  to  the  work  which  falls  to  his  share, 

and  that  at  once  and  immediately,  lest  the  evil  which  is 

already  so  great  may  by  delay  become  absolutely  beyond 

remedv.  Those  who  rule  the  State  must  use  the  law  and 
«/ 

the  institutions  of  the  country ;  masters  and  rich  men 
must  remember  their  duty ;  the  poor  whose  interests  are 
at  stake,  must  make  every  lawful  and  proper  effort ;  and 
since  Religion  alone,  as  We  said  at  the  beginning,  can 
destroy  the  evil  at  its  root,  all  men  must  be  persuaded 
that  the  primary  thing  needful  is  to  return  to  real  Chris¬ 
tianity,  in  the  absence  of  which  all  the  plans  and  devices 
of  the  wisest  will  be  of  little  avail. 

67.  As  far  as  regards  the  Church,  its  assistance  will 
never  be  wanting,  be  the  time  or  the  occasion  what  it 
may ;  and  it  will  intervene  with  the  greater  effect  in 
proportion  as  its  liberty  of  action  is  the  more  unfettered  : 


ENCYCLICAL  LETTER  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII. 


151 


let  this  be  carefully  noted  by  those  whose  office  it  is  to 
provide  for  the  public  welfare.  Every  minister  of  holy 
Religion  must  throw  into  the  conflict  all  the  energy  of 
his  mind  and  all  the  strength  of  his  endurance ;  with 
your  authority,  Venerable  Brethren,  and  by  your 
example,  they  must  never  cease  to  urge  upon  all  men  of 
every  class,  upon  the  high  as  well  as  the  lowly,  the 
Gospel  doctrines  of  Christian  life;  by  every  means  in 
their  power  they  must  strive  for  the  good  of  the  people ; 
and  above  all  they  must  earnestly  cherish  in  themselves, 
and  try  to  arouse  in  others,  Charity,  the  mistress  and 
queen  of  virtues.  For  the  happy  results  we  all  long  for 
must  be  chiefly  brought  about  by  the  plenteous  outpour¬ 
ing  of  Charity;  of  that  true  Christian  Charity  which  is 
the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  Gospel  law,  which  is  always 
ready  to  sacrifice  itself  for  others’  sake,  and  which  is 
man’s  surest  antidote  against  worldly  pride  and  immoder¬ 
ate  love  of  self ;  that  Charity  whose  office  is  described 
and  whose  Godlike  features  are  drawn  by  the  Apostle  St. 
Paul  in  these  words :  Charity  is  patient,  is  hind  .  .  . 
seeheth  not  her  own  .  .  .  suffereth  all  things  .  .  .  endureth 
all  things  *  ^ 

68.  On  each  one  of  you,  Venerable  Brethren,  and  on 
vour  Clergy  and  people,  as  an  earnest  of  God’s  mercy  and 
a  mark  of  Our  affection,  We  lovingly  in  the  Lord  bestow 
the  Apostolic  Benediction. 


Given  at  St.  Peter’s,  in  Rome,  the  fifteenth  day  of  May, 
1891,  the  fourteenth  year  of  Our  Pontificate. 


y* 


DATE  DUE 


-  MOV  1 ' 

m 

-  }  A  k  | 

i  Q  mnc 

SEP  2? 

1995 

JAN 

I  O  |j£/D 

— .  LfAV 

Ifl  n  I 

1  7 

AUG  2 

J  2006 

...  

. 

# 

GAYLORD 

PRI  NT  CO  IN  US.  A. 

BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031 


1 038056 


6 


G  e  o  r  d  e  v  H  e  n  r  y  ?  1 8 3 9 -  :l.  8 9  7  ♦ 
F  h  e  I  a  n  d  «  u  ©  s  t  i  o  n  ? 


Bapst  Library 

Boston  College 
Chestnut  Hill,  Mass.  02167 


